[OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Ulf Lamping]

Hi!

I'm not sure you're aware, but you're currently on the best way to make 
the "license to kill" phrase come true!


First of all: If you're not aware, it's all about trust. When I first 
uploaded data to OSM, I made sure about the license - so my effort 
wasn't only commercially consumed. This level of trust was not build on 
any person known or the (at that time) not existing OSMF, but in the 
text of the CC-by-SA license.


So let's get some facts straight!

You want a license change for the OSM data. Fine, because there are some 
real troubles with the license.


However, the OSM mappers have done their part of the job to make the 
vision of OSM all come true. THEY have provided the real life in it - 
the data. Not only you or me itself, and not the lawyers involved.

So if YOU want to change something it's YOUR duty to convince the mappers!

Simply saying "we're the OSMF board and we know what's good for you" is 
a very, very bad idea to build trust! Remember: We're not talking about 
a bot run to fix some tags, we're talking about the legal property of 
the people involved!

Hopefully obvious, it's a much better idea to convince people than to 
force them to a "yes" / "no" decision.


Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ... 
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST 
THEM?!?

There were NO!!! introduction of the players involved, no ideas how to 
build trust in the community ... (e.g. what's the relation to the OSI 
initiative?).


All in all, I must say that the current way of handling these things in 
this VERY SENSITIVE AREA is nothing but ridiculous!


Regards, ULFL

P.S: Steve's recent mail were not providing any new information except 
that laywers are expensive (BTW: I'm not in a hurry about a new license) ...


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Ulf Lamping]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> OJ W wrote:
>> Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that
>> cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can
>> use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to
>> the map images being sharealike)
> 
> This is your assumption, not mine; I have never mapped anything thinking 
> "hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I 
> can then use". Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an 
> exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data 
> being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with 
> the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-)

Well, I guess you're really the minority here ;-)

My feeling is that most of the "mapping" people involved in the project 
right now are really depending on what the developers/designers are 
doing. And they are happy with the map results the "major maps" offer.


Personally I would love to see a motorcycle dedicated map - but 
hesitated to start the effort ...

Regards, ULFL

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-legal-talk] License to kill

[SteveC]

Where to begin?

Why don't we start with the beautiful community we've built and the  
stunning map can be the backdrop. On this canvas lets spread the  
pieces of the puzzle and see if we can put a few things together.

We have incredible coders. We have mappers that stay up all night  
adding lakes in Bolivia from aerial imagery. We have people building  
community across mailing lists, forums and mapping events. We have  
user interaction people. We have stunning cartography from the planets  
best cartographers. We have a sysadmin team second to none. We have a  
volunteer board doing their best with the tools they have. We have  
fake bloggers so involved in their espionage they fake their own  
retirement and write in a different tone so you don't think it's them.

But, we don't have a shed load of intellectual property lawyers with  
aeons of experience.

Now that's important. Laws and licenses tend not to be written by  
sysadmins. Or Cartographers. Or even expert C++ coders.

We're a funny bunch, us hackers. We can deconstruct a problem and code  
around it. We can avoid logic traps. Every day we decompose algorithms  
and we have no hierarchy other than our code. Is your code better?  
Then you're better. Am I a better coder if I have a degree in computer  
science? Probably not actually. But if I have 10 years hacking on  
Apache or something... then I have a flag to fly. And the wonderful  
thing about our skill as coders is that it applies to a lot of other  
area. We can make electronics if we want. Many of us know quite a bit  
about Physics or Chemistry. We know that coding is basically  
mathematics [5] so we tend to be good at that too.

That logic and intuition we learn as coders is just incredibly  
powerful. We're like wizards with the secret spell and often the world  
lays as an open book to us, and we need not turn the page to know the  
ending of a story. Because we figured it out two equations ago. Or  
it's just like that other coding problem we worked on a few weeks ago.  
Or actually, it's like cantors diagonal slash[6] and we can use that.  
Maybe if we treat the engine as if it were a misbehaving piece of  
code[4] we can figure out the issue just by being scientific.

And that's amazing. It's stunning. It's jaw-dropping. We see the world  
a different way, and we build incredible things like wikipedia, or GNU/ 
Linux. Or we hack together a windscreen wiper which pauses between  
wipes [8]. Or a vacuum cleaner that needs no bags [7].

All that incredible skill very often, sadly, counts for nothing when  
we want to become managers. Or write licenses. Or diagnose our own  
illnesses. Or fall in love. All that logic and training doesn't help.

And we really, really don't like that. We don't like to talk about it  
either.

It's an Outside Context Problem [1]. It's the boundary of our world.  
It's Godel, Escher, Bach[2]. It's the knowing that there is something  
outside of our System of the World[3]. We can't use C++ to manage  
people. We can't use logic to fight with a 2 year old having a  
tantrum. We can't use the scientific method when having an argument  
with our girlfriend, or boyfriend.

And I'm going to have to disagree with many of you respectfully that  
all your coding, or writing, or mapping experience makes you a  
qualified lawyer. Why? Not because you don't have a degree in law. Let  
me say that again - I don't disagree with you because of your  
qualifications... just like I wouldn't disagree with you over a coding  
or logic problem if you don't have a degree from MIT or Cambridge. Law  
is about three things (at least in the societies I've lived in). One  
of them you can nail. You can nuke it from orbit. You will win like  
some vast chess match. The bit you can win is the logic.

The logic of law, of licenses, of contracts... that is trivial. If the  
contract says pay peter £100 or $10 or €1 if he paints your bike shed  
blue then your logic will pay him. If there is a get out clause buried  
under mounds of legalese you can find it. You will exploit it. You  
will win like a champ. I have utterly no doubt. I've used it. I've  
sued people and I've won. And they deserved it.

But what you don't have with all your power and logic is a  
understanding of case law. This would be pillar two in Steve's  
Understanding Of Law. This is where it all falls apart. Because where  
all that logic breaks like the crumple zone on a Ford Escort hitting a  
tree, is the real world. Logic dictates we should lock up 12 year old  
girls for infringing the copyright of Michael Jackson. Logic dictates  
we should lock up terror suspects without trial. Logic dictates  
breaking a copyright protection mechanism is a criminal offence.

And that's all a bit crazy.

Because here's where logic meets opinion. And that opinion is  
called... case law.

Case law says, lets not bring the same thing to court lots of times.  
That's expensive and dull. So if this case here, lets call i

Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch

[Cartinus]

On Tuesday 03 March 2009 11:36:00 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009 15:51:51 Raphaël Jacquot wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:43:04PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> >
> > did you notice lenny has been out for half a month now ? ;)
>
> does it work out of the box with lenny?

Not likely. Lenny has the 11 months old Mapnik 5.1 which is also available in 
etch-backports. So Mapnik is no reason to switch from Etch to Lenny.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "There Is No Cabal"

[Ulf Möller]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:

>> then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM 
>> Foundation. 
> 
> I haven't seen this emerging anywhere. (In fact, the OSM foundation, 
> represented by their board of directors, seems to have been remarkably 
> un-involved as we have heard from 80n who serves on the board.)

True. Re-reading the message at 
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/26.html, the 
change request is attributed to the Foundation's lawyer, not to the 
Foundation itself.

However, it is described as "an effort to simplify some of the licensing
issues around being able to use a database to produce a work when
using other sources", and not as an accident.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "There Is No Cabal"

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Ulf Möller wrote:
> After *three days* of analyzing the licence text, people figure out that 
> it doesn't actually require ShareAlike for commercial derived maps,

I think we're seeing a slight problem with the wording here that has 
been overlooked, not a problem of the magnitude you describe, and 
certainly nothing to do with commercial vs. non-commercial.

> and 
> then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM 
> Foundation. 

I haven't seen this emerging anywhere. (In fact, the OSM foundation, 
represented by their board of directors, seems to have been remarkably 
un-involved as we have heard from 80n who serves on the board.)

Assuming you're talking about the issue we raised on odc-discuss, I 
currently tend to thing it is a cockup rather than a conspiracy.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: It's all too fast...

[Grant Slater]

Peter Miller wrote:
> Even now we are getting no explanations from the foundation to our
> questions. Either this is because they dont know or it is because they
> dont think they need to contribute. I understand that most directors
> have not been in the loop so cant contribute. The only person we know
> has been in the loop is steve. Does he have answers i wonder? If not
> then no one knows and we are really in trouble. Many of the key issues
> are on the wiki already and we need a response to them now. Peter
>   

I am on the license working group... am I listening; yes. Do I know all 
(or any of) the answers off the top of my head; no. We (Licensing 
working group) have released as much information as we have at the 
moment. Do we have a secret hidden agenda; no.

I will try get answers for the questions raised. Our meeting of the 2nd 
March hasn't happened yet, it will likely be later this week.
 
Is the timeline in the proposed implementation plan overly ambitious... 
yes likely. Are the items all up for discussion yes.

/ Grant

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Mirroring planet.openstreetmap.org

[Milenko]

Hey all,

 

I'm bring my mirror (planet.king-nerd.com) of
planet.openstreetmap.org back up to date.  I currently use a script with
several wget commands due to the redirects to ftp.heanet.ie when downloading
from the planet.  This works fine, except that the heanet.ie site is quite
slow here most of the time.  I'm currently getting speeds of 20 - 50KB/s,
which will take weeks to get the last couple planets.  Is there a way I can
sync directly with planet.openstreetmap.org either without the redirects, or
via some method other than http (rsync, etc)?

 

I'm getting prepped to move this server to a 100mbit colo in
a few days, so I'd like to speed things up a bit if possible.

 

-Jeremy

 

 

 

 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] "There Is No Cabal"

[Ulf Möller]

Richard Fairhurst schrieb:

> Far, far better that you speak up and post "I'm worried about this
> because...", even in Schwabisch dialect if you like, than you sit there in
> silence thinking "there's this conspiracy to make OSM commercial and I feel
> left out".

After *three days* of analyzing the licence text, people figure out that 
it doesn't actually require ShareAlike for commercial derived maps, and 
then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM 
Foundation. But the people in charge couldn't be bothered to tell us 
because apparently they're busy discussing Search Engine Optimization. WTF?

> Because There Is No Cabal.

Good, but there is a licensing working group, and it would be helpful to 
know what they're doing. Are they hearing the concerns about open issues 
with the license, or has a conference appearance been scheduled for for 
presenting the new license on March 28th and they'd rather not cancel it?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Simon Ward]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:33:56AM +0100, MP wrote:
> This could be perhaps "optimized": if user A creates some
> highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it
> to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't.
> But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it won't
> be necessary to revert to highway=road in this case. Basically, if the
> edits of "incompatible users" got later reverted or altered so their
> contribution is not there anymore, there is no need to rollback, just
> delete their revision from history.

This seems reasonable, but (there’s always one) what happens in the case
that A creates highway=road, B changes it to highway=residenital
(intentional mis‐spelling), and C corrects it to highway=residential?

Unless C can be said to have surveyed it, this looks like an
“improvement” to B’s efforts, and a trivial one at that.  It should
probably be reverted to A’s edit, and tagged for resurvey.

> > There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data
> > are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be
> > kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them.
> 
> Perhaps for really minor changes, like alterations to created_by or
> conversion from "true" to "yes" or alike we could make an exception.

Reasonable: Changes that don’t change the semantics, or are just
meta‐data about the change, can be excepted.

> Would there be at least some information like "this object was
> reverted because of new license" (which would signal that the object
> perhaps need to be re-improved somehow) and for deleted objects
> information that "something was deleted from here"?

I don’t see why not.

> Also, what if someone who disagrees to new license deletes some data
> (either because that data is wrong or is replaced by something else
> that he draws). Will the deleted data get restored?

I know what OSM needs:  Changesets! ;)

I think all incompatible edits should get restored, although I
understand it could lead to a little bit of a mess.  Hopefully, in most
cases:

 1. A scribbles on the map. [compatible change]
 2. B removes the scribble [incompatible change]; and
 3. B replaces it with a neat road [incompatible change].

B doesn’t agree to the licence and the neat road gets deleted, and the
scribble gets added back in.

The following looks more messy, however:

 1. A scribbles on the map [compatible]
 2. B removes the scribble [incompatible]
 3. C adds a neat road [compatible]

If we follow the rule of reverting incompatible changes only 2 is
reverted to 1 (A’s scribble gets added back in).  3 is considered an
independent change.  We end up with both a scribble and a neat road in
the same area.  This situation likely won’t be easy to detect until
after the changes, when validators will gleefully litter the map with
warnings about overlapping ways.

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
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

>> - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are
>> only part of the history of objects, do you rollback  to a previous
>> version of these objects ?
>
> Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the
> new licence are made.

This could be perhaps "optimized": if user A creates some
highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it
to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't.
But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it won't
be necessary to revert to highway=road in this case. Basically, if the
edits of "incompatible users" got later reverted or altered so their
contribution is not there anymore, there is no need to rollback, just
delete their revision from history.

This could help in cases where user B just make lot of mistakes that
got later reverted/corrected.

Technically, for ways we would have problems with restoring old
revision, since the nodes referenced by the old revision could have
been moved/deleted in the meantime, so that would possibly create some
invalid data.

> There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data
> are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be
> kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them.

Perhaps for really minor changes, like alterations to created_by or
conversion from "true" to "yes" or alike we could make an exception.
Or in cases where the object was "completely modified" from the last
"license-incompatible" version.

> In the interests of keeping it clean, any reverts made due to
> incompatible changes would not be kept in the history.

Would there be at least some information like "this object was
reverted because of new license" (which would signal that the object
perhaps need to be re-improved somehow) and for deleted objects
information that "something was deleted from here"?

> A backup can be kept of the old database of CC-by-sa compatible data.
> It might come in handy if some non‐responders pipe up and say “yes”, or
> the “no” voters change their minds.

Won't be of much use after longer time, since the missing data are
probably first to get readded and merging contribution of people who
changed their mind with the parts that was restored by remapping the
affected area in meantime would be difficult and won't be posible to
automate.

Also, what if someone who disagrees to new license deletes some data
(either because that data is wrong or is replaced by something else
that he draws). Will the deleted data get restored?

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[80n]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote:
> > We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
> > than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
> > April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
> > make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to
> > do everything in 1 month.
>
> Everything that Frederik said. There has been no interactive discussion
> with the editors of the licence, no formal place (as there is now on
> co-ment.net) for collating and discussing issues, no explanation of the
> deltas from the previous draft to this, no explanation of how it might
> work in a range of possible use cases, etc. etc.
>

Wilson Sonsini was engaged by OSMF on October 13, 2008.

Since then there has been a dialog between Jordan Hatcher and Wilson Sonsini
acting on behalf of OSMF.

Other than the uses cases document, which was published at the same time as
the license, the OSMF board has not received *any* communication from Wilson
Sonsini.

As far as I am aware any interactive discussion between Clark Asay and
Jordan Hatcher has not been documented.

80n


>
> You say the licence isn't completely new. Where's the document showing
> the differences from the previously discussed draft, along with the
> rationale for why each change was made? Something like this:
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale
> (PDF document)
> I believe the GPLv3 process issued three or four of those, although they
> appear to have taken all but the final one down.
>
> Without such a document, it might as well be completely new.
>





>
> Gerv
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:
> [routing source code]
> I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate
> but rather difficult to close

Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But:

> [...]
> we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to 
> ensure that OSM players are not trying to take advantage of 
> each other.

is inordinately offensive.

As far as I know there are only two "OSM players" who are commercial
cartographers in some way (though for neither of us is it our main job): me
and Steve Chilton. To allege that we are aiming to take advantage of other
contributors is, yes, offensive, but also insane beyond belief. You might
not like Potlatch, you might not trace from NPE or ever use any traced data,
you might never use the Mapnik layer. But there is no denying that all three
of them are very major contributions to OSM without any - _any_ - payback.

Meanwhile, the guys releasing the routing software are, er, the ones who've
got €2.4m of venture capital. I don't begrudge them that - quite the
contrary. I don't think anyone does. But you might want to open your eyes.

Sheesh.

Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22320263.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:58 PM, OJ W  wrote:

> It would be great to require that only free software could use OSM
> maps.

Seriously? Should I only be able to read Wikipedia articles in Firefox
and not Internet Explorer? That's nuts! It's the content that's
important - the wikipedia text, the OSM data. If gcc could only be
used to compile GPL software I'll bet it would be far less well
developed, if wikipedia could only be seen on Linux fewer people would
write it, and if OSM could only be used with free software then we'd
be staring at giant blank maps.

This is written on my Ubuntu laptop, of course.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Tobias Knerr]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I have never mapped anything thinking 
> "hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I 
> can then use". Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an 
> exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data 
> being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with 
> the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-)

My (completely unscientific) observation is that liberal opinions about
licensing (esp. PD-advocacy) are more common with people who actually
write software / make map styles / do other "advanced" things with OSM
data. Support for liberal licensing also appears to be more prevalent on
the mailing lists than anywhere else in the project.

One possible explanation might be that these "liberals" have experienced
the problems of incompatible licenses etc. themselves. However, I'm
starting to think that there's something else: If people are able to
create cool OSM stuff themselves, they care most about licensing not
getting in their way. Mappers who don't have the technical or artistic
skills or simply the time to do so will still want cool stuff to be done
with OSM. Of course, they have to rely on others creating it, and, more
importantly, others allowing them to use it under attractive conditions.
A license that guarantees the last part might seem rather appealing for
many of them.

Just a side note because I found this aspect of the statement especially
interesting. Most probably overly generalizing, misleading and/or simply
wrong. ;-)

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[Gervase Markham]

On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote:
> We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
> than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
> April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
> make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to
> do everything in 1 month.

Everything that Frederik said. There has been no interactive discussion 
with the editors of the licence, no formal place (as there is now on 
co-ment.net) for collating and discussing issues, no explanation of the 
deltas from the previous draft to this, no explanation of how it might 
work in a range of possible use cases, etc. etc.

You say the licence isn't completely new. Where's the document showing 
the differences from the previously discussed draft, along with the 
rationale for why each change was made? Something like this:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale
(PDF document)
I believe the GPLv3 process issued three or four of those, although they 
appear to have taken all but the final one down.

Without such a document, it might as well be completely new.

Gerv


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[OJ W]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> OJ W wrote:
>
>> If the cartographers then devise a new license that says "my
>> contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
>> rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
>> shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
>> GPS" then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the
>> work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy.
>
> So to return to the point you have completely ignored, can you tell me
> why you're happy that the (current) licence doesn't require routing
> program source code to be released, please?

I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate
but rather difficult to close, whereas you seem to see it as "other
people have the ability to restrict views of OSM data, so why
shouldn't I", i.e. as an opportunity to extend the non-free
visualisations of the map to other areas, specifically those where
systemeD hopes to create a retirement fund by charging for access to
copyrighted OSM maps.

It would be great to require that only free software could use OSM
maps.  I saw other peoples agreement on this when we discussed
someone's 3D viewer for OSM data, and the #1 comment on this mailing
list was "we shouldn't glorify the use of non-free software".

Proprietary routing software on OSM data was seen as something outside
of this community, not necessarily unacceptable of itself, but
certainly something that needed to be discarded and replaced with a
free alternative.

However taking a view on the types of software permitted would be a
licensing problem of difficulty that makes ODbL look like a walk in
the park, whereas the choice of license for images derived from an
ODbL (i.e. maps, the purpose of this project!) is trivial - we can
just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to ensure that
OSM players are not trying to take advantage of each other.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: It's all too fast...

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Peter Miller  wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Peter Miller 
> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:04:57 +
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
> To: Frederik Ramm 
>
> Even now we are getting no explanations from the foundation to our
> questions. Either this is because they dont know or it is because they
> dont think they need to contribute. I understand that most directors
> have not been in the loop so cant contribute.

I really don't want to get into a long discussion about the licence,
but what I'm really missing is a rationale document, going through
each paragraph explaining why it says what it says. Because there are
things in there that I don't understand why they're there.

As an aside, Can we get something into the user accounts that allows
people to tick a box saying they agree to some kind of licence change.
ISTM the easiest way to finish the discussion about deleted data is to
get some actual figures as to how much of a problem it is. If it turns
out 99.8% of people agree then the question becomes moot.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout  http://svana.org/kleptog/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Gervase Markham]

On 03/03/09 18:39, Matthias Julius wrote:
> It is not that simple.  What if those 5% is half of South Africa?  You
> certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South
> Africa.

...which is why this is an unanswerable question. Let's go through the 
exercise, see what the percentage actually is and where the data is, and 
then decide what to do.

Gerv


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Roland Olbricht]

> Everything is up for debate.

For me, this license change resembles the EULA story with openSuse, see
http://zonker.opensuse.org/2008/11/26/opensuse-sports-a-new-license-ding-dong-the-eulas-dead/
and
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/opensuse-ends-eula

At least in Germany, this EULA story might had more impact on openSuse than 
the cooperation of Microsoft and Novell. And it started as a clash of 
cultures when Novell changed the Suse pages from the Suse way of organizing a 
site to the Novell way of organizing a site.

A lot of end users have been trained to the following way of perceiving: a 
screen mask that consists of several pages of scrollable text and then two 
buttons "Yes" or "Abort" means
"We never warrant that any part of this software works. But we always let you 
pay again when you do something we haven't planned."
no matter what's actually written in the text.

For a lot of people who are not primarly interested in law, this is 
what "commercial" means.

So I would like to suggest the following:
1. Create a message like
---
We are trying to get out of the caveats and flaws of copyright law and 
therefore need a new license. The final draft can be found at
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
and
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/
For non-law-experts, this means
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases
---

2. When a useful version of that message exists, request for as many 
translations as possible. Even doing here on talk@ would be a good place.

3. After some days, make the thing available at every user login.

4. Don't start the license commit itself at most a month after this message 
has been announced.

At least for those who perceive Yes-Abort-pages that way, this would much more 
look like the behaviour of an "open" project.

And what to users who do not log in with a browser?

Cheers,
Roland

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Nop]

Hi!

OJ W schrieb:
> If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with
> WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view,
> modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might
> decide "I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to
> these conditions can use my maps", leading to a fragmentation of
> licenses for the various slippy maps available.
> 
> Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial
> battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most
> restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy "everything is
> CC-BY-SA" level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry
> about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers?

Actually, the opposite is the case.

Right now, the restrictive SA-licence keeps the community people from 
creating better maps using both OSM data and other sources with other 
licences. At the same time, the data ist not sufficiently protected and 
any unscrupulous company or person can just grab everything and create a 
much better map combining any sources, completely disregarding the 
spirit of the licence. The community could not compete with such 
multi-sourced maps and puplic usage would likely prefer the stolen, but 
much more complete maps.

The new license will *enable* the community to create better works based 
on OSM and as long as these are available for free, the evil commercial 
cartographer has no leverage to sell his commercial products if he 
doesn't add considerable effort and due to the DB-license everything he 
adds is available to the community to build upon it, too.


bye
Nop

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[OJ W]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
> SteveC wrote:
>> I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different
>> front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page
>> below.
>
> Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing
> at all.
>
> In a "let's ask for the stars" way, though, how about:
>
> - a little draggable "I've found a problem" icon - yeah yeah, OSB
> integration :)
> - something that says "Hey! We're a fun community!"; maybe two forthcoming
> events in tiny type?
> - some visualisation like Mikel's old activity tracker, showing where people
> have been editing recently - so you get a real sense of how alive the
> project is; would only want this at, say z1-10
> - as per Dave's e-mail: lots of visibility for "you get different views on
> the same data", maybe with a "More..." link to featured images, or a
> gallery, or something
> - downloadable Fake SteveC mascot for your desktop which installs some
> spyware and stuff like that

+1 to all of those (does the plugin make ICHC update any faster?)

there was an idea just to have some big textbox on the page saying
"tell us what's wrong with what you see" that enters an OSB ticket for
the region you're looking at.  (preferably filtering-out entries
telling you that the world looks incomplete)

the 'drag problem-marker' idea sounds even better, since javascript is
likely to be available for anyone using the slippy-map.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM, OJ W  wrote:

> Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial
> battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most
> restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy "everything is
> CC-BY-SA" level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry
> about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers?

I think you're severely misunderstanding the current situation. There
are certainly conditions on the use of the opencyclemap tiles that are
not covered by cc-by-sa. You can't scrape all the z18 tiles, because
you'll be banned if you try. If you're app relies on being able to
scrape all the z18 tiles from tile.osm.org, then it'll be incompatible
with the cycle map.

Every server that I'm aware of has terms and conditions already, and
they are all different. However, you are right in saying that as it
stands, once you've actually acquired a tile you can be sure that you
have a consistent license.

I don't think it's a problem. If someone makes a tileserver with
crappy Ts&Cs then someone else can make another one with the same data
and Ts&Cs that are acceptable to whichever standard.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] regarding ODC and OKF

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:11:13PM +, OJ W wrote:
> > Regardless of who they are, why should we give them complete control
> > over the license? It seems, if they were to decide to for example make
> > our project PD, neither the OSMF Board, nor the OSMF members, nor anyone
> > else could do anything about it?
> 
> would it be better for someone like FSF to host the license?

I think we would have the same concerns as there are with OKF hosting
it.

I personally think the later version clause should be removed and left
for the licensor to decide, or at least written in a similar way to
section 14 of the GPL[1], which gives the licensor the option to state
version specifics, but has a fallback.

If such a change is made, then the community may decide criteria for
acceptance of a newer revision of the licence.

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section14

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-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:

> If the cartographers then devise a new license that says "my
> contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
> rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
> shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
> GPS" then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the
> work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy.

So to return to the point you have completely ignored, can you tell me  
why you're happy that the (current) licence doesn't require routing  
program source code to be released, please?

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Paul Wagener]

Thank you for your post Frederick!
I've been lurking on this discussion for awhile and you just summed up  
exactly my thoughts on it.

> Hi,
>
> OJ W wrote:
>> Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that
>> cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can
>> use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to
>> the map images being sharealike)
>
> This is your assumption, not mine; I have never mapped anything  
> thinking
> "hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I
> can then use". Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an
> exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data
> being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do  
> with
> the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-)
>
>> If the cartographers then devise a new license that says "my
>> contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
>> rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
>> shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
>> GPS"
>
> I don't like "more important".
>
> I think that the designer is actually doing something *less* important
> in the grand scheme of things. (His work might make up 90% of the work
> that goes into his particular product, but for us, it is negligible.)
> The surveyors are directly working towards the declared aim of this
> project; creating a free world map. Everything a surveyor does (well
> unless he's malicious or extremely stupid) will further this goal; his
> work is important to us.
>
> The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in  
> reaching
> the goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and
> not a *creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it
> allows us to show off what can be done with our data (although if he  
> at
> least attributes us that's also a good thing). But him releasing his
> work does not contribute to the free world map; or, turned the other  
> way
> round, him keeping his work for himself does not slow us down in any  
> way
> (because what would we do with his painted maps? trace our data off  
> them?).
>
> It all boils down to ideology. Forcing the cartographer to release his
> work means that we're not only about the free world map but also about
> free map images, free art installations, free t-shirt designs, free
> computer games, and so on. Concentrating on the data and ignoring the
> other stuff means, well, concentrating on the free world map.
>
> I am a great believer in the principal goodness of men, and I sure  
> would
> encourage everyone who takes anything from OSM, be it data, or just
> inspiration, to catch the spirit and give cool things away as well.  
> But
> trying to *force* people to do so will, I believe, create unnecessary
> problems and friction and unease (witness inability to use CGIAR  
> data by
> OpenCycleMap for example) and just make things worse for everyone.
>
> Bye
> Frederik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[OJ W]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in reaching the
> goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and not a
> *creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it allows us to
> show off what can be done with our data (although if he at least attributes
> us that's also a good thing). But him releasing his work does not contribute
> to the free world map; or, turned the other way round, him keeping his work
> for himself does not slow us down in any way (because what would we do with
> his painted maps? trace our data off them?).

what would we do with the cartographer's map images?  (other than
print them to navigate with or, put them in an encyclopedia, seems
reasonable after *we* mapped the area...)

the obvious one is: we would use them in software

currently, there are many different slippy-maps showing different
renderings of OSM data.  They are all technically compatible (due to
the tilenames) and they are all legally compatible (due to the CC-SA
license on images).  An application can swap between any of the maps
(and cache or distribute copies as they please) just by changing a
URL.

As with many other open standards, this leads to a wealth of
innovation in the devices, websites, applications and products which
use these mapservers (e.g. tangoGPS, the iphone app, the mediawiki
plugin, the variety of OSM website designs)

If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with
WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view,
modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might
decide "I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to
these conditions can use my maps", leading to a fragmentation of
licenses for the various slippy maps available.

Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial
battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most
restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy "everything is
CC-BY-SA" level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry
about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Tobias Knerr]

Simon Ward wrote:
> I have had to explain to free software advocates before (I am one) that
> OpenStreetMap is about free geodata, not necessarily free software.

The problem is that while the distinction between software and geodata
has been around from the start, the one involving images is to be
introduced only now.

Imagine this in the software example: If we had been requiring that all
software using OSM data had to be GPL until now and decided to drop this
requirement, telling people that they simply misunderstood the project's
goals and that it never was about free software -- I'd imagine that
there would be some mappers who firmly opposed that move.

> It turns out that much of
> the software for OpenStreetMap is free software.

Which isn't surprising because few people outside the OSM and free
software/content communities are using OSM-based software so far. This
doesn't make it reasonably attractive for authors of proprietary
software. I expect that to change once we are competitive in terms of
data quality and coverage. Same for not-so-free produced works.

>> I don't think explaining that data is more useful for us than images
>> will help (I've already tried that), because that won't stop them from
>> demanding both.
> 
> Similarly, we can put enough free images out there for them to be useful
> to all, and make the non‐free ones hardly worth the pixels/vectors.

Well, this doesn't really help to explain why we should allow those
non-free ones to be created in the first place.

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[wer-ist-roger]

Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 schrieb Gustav Foseid:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger wrote:
> > The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the
> > wiki
> > page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database
> > is nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database
> > need a license and why do we need two different licenses for database and
> > the data within?
>
> What is an appropriate wiki page?
>
>  - Gustav

First of all it would be interesting for what we need the Open Database 
License and the Factual Information License? So we are actully not talking 
about just one (everyone just talks about ODbL) but two licenses, so what's 
als about this factual information license thing? 
An appropriat wiki page for me would be a page that explains to a "law noob" 
like me what happens to my data that I submit. What can be done with the data 
once it's uploaded (from an contributer and user perspectiv) and what could 
happen with it in the future (especially concerning the licenses, new versions 
of them and how we want to prevent another discussion like this). Who is the 
owner of this material. Maybe one should point out the differences between the 
current licens and the new licenseS and what it means to the regular 
contributer.
It is not important to show every aspect of the licens but to give a good and 
short overview.

Giving more information about the licenses might be good to get them more 
popular. Because the more I read about it here on the mailing list the more I 
get confused and by now I even disagree a little with the license change. A 
good wiki page that shows a little more then just the current one might help 
more.

Roger

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Fwd: It's all too fast...

[Peter Miller]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Miller 
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:04:57 +
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
To: Frederik Ramm 

Even now we are getting no explanations from the foundation to our
questions. Either this is because they dont know or it is because they
dont think they need to contribute. I understand that most directors
have not been in the loop so cant contribute. The only person we know
has been in the loop is steve. Does he have answers i wonder? If not
then no one knows and we are really in trouble. Many of the key issues
are on the wiki already and we need a response to them now. Peter

On 3/3/09, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andy Allan wrote:
>> We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
>> than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
>> April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
>> make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to
>> do everything in 1 month.
>
> The previous draft was published in April 2008 and there was virtually
> no two-way communication with those who worked on it. We gathered on
> legal-talk, we asked questions, we put up use cases, and most of them
> were not seriously discussed by *anyone* from the license working group;
> we had no feedback from *any* of the lawyers involved, and no interim
> versions of the license. Even the OSMF board did not know anything until
> some time in January. If you look at the legal-talk archives it may look
> like there were people talking about the license but the truth is that
> there was virtually no overlap between those who worked on the license
> (and talked to lawyers) and those who discussed on the list. It is fair
> to say that there has been next to zero community involvement in
> producing the 0.9 draft.
>
> Now we have a new draft, where certain things have changed. Nobody
> involved with creating the draft has wasted *one* *single* *minute* to
> explain which changes have been made and why. The legal counsel's
> response to our "use cases" on the Wiki is thin, to say the very least.
> Many things that could be clarified within minutes in a proper dialogue
> have been drawn out to last months - for example, if the legal counsel
> did not understand something about our use cases, it would have been
> trivial for me or anyone else on the list to explain; instead we now
> read "I would need someone to talk me through this". Words that probably
> have been sitting in that document for two months before we even saw it,
> and words that will sit there for another two months before someone
> finds the time to talk them through it and get a response.
>
> The recently quoted discussion on odc-discuss about share-alike
> extending to interim derived databases (something we all took for
> granted) seems to show that there are either major intentional
> differences between the April 08 draft and the just released 0.9, or
> that serious oversight was involved in preparing 0.9.
>
> The fact that the new license is to be hosted by a body known as Open
> Data Commons is at most 2 months old (because the December board meeting
> still said "hosting options unknown, OSMF may need to host"); given that
> whoever is hosting the license has far-ranging powers over the license,
> this is not something to tick off lightly.
>
> I'm all in favour of ODbL but I currently cannot by the life of me see a
> way how it could ever be put in force along the timeline published.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

-- 
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com

-- 
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

OJ W wrote:
> Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that
> cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can
> use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to
> the map images being sharealike)

This is your assumption, not mine; I have never mapped anything thinking 
"hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I 
can then use". Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an 
exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data 
being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with 
the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-)

> If the cartographers then devise a new license that says "my
> contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
> rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
> shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
> GPS" 

I don't like "more important".

I think that the designer is actually doing something *less* important 
in the grand scheme of things. (His work might make up 90% of the work 
that goes into his particular product, but for us, it is negligible.) 
The surveyors are directly working towards the declared aim of this 
project; creating a free world map. Everything a surveyor does (well 
unless he's malicious or extremely stupid) will further this goal; his 
work is important to us.

The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in reaching 
the goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and 
not a *creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it 
allows us to show off what can be done with our data (although if he at 
least attributes us that's also a good thing). But him releasing his 
work does not contribute to the free world map; or, turned the other way 
round, him keeping his work for himself does not slow us down in any way 
(because what would we do with his painted maps? trace our data off them?).

It all boils down to ideology. Forcing the cartographer to release his 
work means that we're not only about the free world map but also about 
free map images, free art installations, free t-shirt designs, free 
computer games, and so on. Concentrating on the data and ignoring the 
other stuff means, well, concentrating on the free world map.

I am a great believer in the principal goodness of men, and I sure would 
encourage everyone who takes anything from OSM, be it data, or just 
inspiration, to catch the spirit and give cool things away as well. But 
trying to *force* people to do so will, I believe, create unnecessary 
problems and friction and unease (witness inability to use CGIAR data by 
OpenCycleMap for example) and just make things worse for everyone.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Stanislav Brabec]

Richard Fairhurst wrote in Tue 03/03 2009 at 06:55 -0800:
> Pieren wrote:
> > It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with 
> > the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer 
> > the following questions:
> 
> It's not been decided. What do you think should happen?
> 
> Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan
> (co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: "It (like the
> rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion."

Learning from history of open projects, nearly all of them forked before
the license change. You should expect, that OSM will do it as well.

But I can imagine two completely different scenarios with two totally
different reasons to fork. Only one of them would be destructive to the
community.


Scenario 1 (as is, destructive):

+ 2 months
  * Final cut-off. Delete data from people who have said no to ODbL
or not responded or revert. Delete data with source tag related
to organizations, that did not response or did not accept the
new license.

Forks:
 1. OSM: ODbL, 0-30% loss, depending on country
 2. CC-BY-SA-OSM: CC-BY-SA fork, full database, community fork


Scenario 2 (modified license, more work, non-destructive):

Make OSM ODbL upwards compatible to CC-BY-SA. Ensure that OSM ODbL
license allows to incorporate CC-BY-SA licensed data as they are.

+ 1 week
OSM database has a new tag: osm_license. All existing submissions are
marked as osm_license=CC-BY-SA. This tag is immutable by editors.

Another database is populated by set of rules:
  * User John allows to re-license everything to ODbL
  * User Adam allows rejects the re-license
  * User Jan did not respond
  * Provider of data with source="map_company_donate" allows to
re-license everything to ODbL
  * Provider of data with source="big_map_company" refused the
re-license
  * Provider of data with source="small_company" did not respond

+ 2 weeks
Once a week run a privileged license_migration_script, that has the
privilege to change the license tag if:
  * Only allows_relicense users are mentioned in the history
  * Only allows_relicense companies are mentioned in the source tag
  * The above applies for all points, lines and relations of the
element

+ 2 months 
  * 80-100% of the data was migrated to ODbL. It's no more legally
possible to use these data for closed source routing. There are
still potentially some parts of the database with the old
license, maybe they will stay forever.

Forks:
 1. OSM: ODbL+CC-BY-SA-OSM (dual license for old data), full
database
 2. CC-BY-SA-OSM: full database, commercial fork created by closed
source providers, full database

+ ~188 years
  * Legislation will probably allow to convert all submissions done
by individuals to ODbL.



Stanislav Brabec
http://www.penguin.cz/~utx


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] regarding ODC and OKF

[OJ W]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Ulf Möller  wrote:
> John Wilbanks schrieb:
>
>> In terms of OKF, hosting licenses is hard, and versioning licenses is
>> really hard, but OKF has been around for a while and is a solid group of
>> folks. If they are going to host your license you are way ahead of the
>> game in terms of having a group that is smart and honest and open in
>> your camp.
>
> According to their web site, they are a Company Limited by Guarantee. I
> couldn't find any information on the owners.
>
> Regardless of who they are, why should we give them complete control
> over the license? It seems, if they were to decide to for example make
> our project PD, neither the OSMF Board, nor the OSMF members, nor anyone
> else could do anything about it?
>

would it be better for someone like FSF to host the license?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating
> the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the "free
> world" with ODbL.

Then we need to make sure as many tools as possible are free software,
and are at least as good as the proprietary competition.

I have had to explain to free software advocates before (I am one) that
OpenStreetMap is about free geodata, not necessarily free software.

Still, some free software advocates will go off in a hissy fit because
they believe the project has its priorities wrong.  The better answer
would to get behind the free software tools that are already out there,
maybe even help to develop more, and compete with proprietary software
the same way free software always has done.  It turns out that much of
the software for OpenStreetMap is free software.

> I don't think explaining that data is more useful for us than images
> will help (I've already tried that), because that won't stop them from
> demanding both.

Similarly, we can put enough free images out there for them to be useful
to all, and make the non‐free ones hardly worth the pixels/vectors.

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
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[OJ W]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking
> What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The "program code" for
> that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which
> anyone can have - but that's incidental.
>
> I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the
> magazine every month. It isn't "rendering". It's entirely done by hand.
> Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the
> pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user
> doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to
> aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest!

Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that
cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can
use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to
the map images being sharealike)

If the cartographers then devise a new license that says "my
contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
GPS" then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the
work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy.

The only counter-argument to this seems to be that the freetards are
invited to do a free version of cartography themselves, duplicating
effort that has already been done in the proprietary world in order to
get access to the results (as nice map images) of their own surveying

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:28:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the
> license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the
> following questions:

My take:

> - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to
> the new licence or also if you have no response ?

Delete both.

> what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes'
> or 'no' ?

The main thing is, no contributor, unless they have specifically stated
otherwise, has (or in some cases, can) assign the rights to OSM, and OSM
cannot just assume rights other than those given by the licence they
were contributed under.

Some users have declared their contributions to be in the public domain
(or as close as law permits).  Whether or not they respond, I think it’s
safe to assume their data can be distributed under the terms of the new
licence (I’d hope we’d be polite and ask anyway).

> - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or
> single contributions ?

All data incompatible with the new licence, large or small.

> - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are
> only part of the history of objects, do you rollback  to a previous
> version of these objects ?

Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the
new licence are made.

There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data
are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be
kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them.

Maybe if a user responds “no”, a further page could ask whether or not
they agree with their modifications to other peoples’ data being
used under the terms of the new licence.

> remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the
> last modifier ?

Remove the object completely if the contributor is the creator.

If the contributor is the last modifier, revert to the revision before
as above.

> only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history
> of the object ?

Remove the object completely.

> - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the
> relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ?
> or you also delete the relation in this case ?

I am not sure there is much point in keeping the relation.  If someone
needs to use a relation to describe the same thing they can always
create a new one.

There is another question here:  If the contributor created a relation
and added ways and nodes appropriately, do you delete the relation even
when it includes references to objects from other contributors?

I think, to be safe, you do, but I also feel there is a looser coupling
if the relation only relates objects compatible with the new licence.

> what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license)
> added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be
> deleted ?

I still don’t think there is much point in keeping the relation.

> - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also
> delete the bot contributions ?

Yes, unless they say otherwise.  It may well be that the bot author
feels that, while they do not agree to the new licence for their own
modifications, those made by the bot may be insubstantial (e.g. spelling
corrections), and say “no” for their own edits, and “yes” for their
bot’s edits.

> - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other
> related objects ?

In the interests of keeping it clean, any reverts made due to
incompatible changes would not be kept in the history.

A backup can be kept of the old database of CC-by-sa compatible data.
It might come in handy if some non‐responders pipe up and say “yes”, or
the “no” voters change their minds.

> will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through
> Potlatch for instance ?

It shouldn’t be.

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
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[Ed Loach]

Martin wrote:

> Perhaps give option to agree to ODbL also to existing accounts
> (though
> do not make it mandatory for now). This could also solve some
> problems
> if people leave the project in the meantime (perhaps because
> they have
> already mapped their area of interest or whatever ...)

I was going to suggest something similar after checking my settings
on the OSM section of the website earlier today to see if there was
anything there already that I could tick.

Ed



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template

[Harald Kleiner]

> Shaun wrote:
> 
>> This crossing of a highway and a railway needs to 
>> be tagged as railway=level_crossing
>>
>> Is not quite right as it should also allow 
>> railway=crossing. a crossing is a crossing just for 
>> pedestrians, while level_crossing is a crossing where 
>> larger vehicles can cross too.
> 

Thank you, Shaun for the clarification! The check does allow 
'railway=crossing' as well as 'railway=level_crossing', but it was not 
documented that way. I've added that now.


> Hi Harald,
> 
> Do you use the saved comments against false positives to improve the
> checks at all? For example I noted against one such highlighted
> problem that railway=abandoned meeting a highway=footway probably
> doesn't need to be tagged as a level_crossing (indeed part of the
> footway runs along a section of the abandoned railway line).

Yes of course, I will use the comments! In fact that's the only purpost 
of the comment field.

Thank you for the hint, I excluded abandoned railways by now. Please 
note that this change will take effect in the next but one update, as 
the check process is already running...

> 
> Having said that I've found a few things to correct around here as
> well as the false positives, and there are a few things that are
> highlighted as places I meant to go and finish but forgot about...
> 
> Ed
> 
>
Thank you,
Harald


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] images are Produced Works

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:40:08AM -0500, Richard Weait wrote:
> I see SVG as just another image.  Raster or Vector; the image format is
> not a problem.  […}

> The problem is behaviour.  In this case the potential problem is Some
> Jerk trying to use OSM database without living up to their license
> obligations.

An SVG image may contain a attributes that are far closer to the those
from the orignal data, but that makes 4.7 “Reverse Engineering” no less
applicable.  Just because it is potentially trivial to extract the data
from the SVG file does not mean the licence ceases to apply.

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-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] form input field for "GPS Traces"

[Tim Waters (chippy)]

2009/3/3 Roman Neumüller :
> I recommend to add a form input field for "GPS Traces" where a user can
> easily search for a tag, let's say GPS tracks for Paris.
> You can easily upload your tracks but you cannot easily search. I know that
> I can of course type a tag into the browser's address field like
>
>   http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Paris
>
> But a normal user may not know it. And: if I write it wrongly like
>
>   http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Pariss
>
> or
>
>   http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/Paris
>
> I get:
>
>   Application error
>
>   Change this error message for exceptions thrown outside of an action
>   (like in Dispatcher setups or broken Ruby code) in public/500.html
>
> Roman

http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/206

The existing patch (using  LIKE ) should work for
http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Par for example, but wouldn't
work for mis spellings. I'd assume we'd be after some kind of
Googleish suggest functionality? Feel free to hack on it.

"did you mean Paris or Parnassus?"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Andy Allan wrote:
> We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
> than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
> April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
> make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to
> do everything in 1 month.

The previous draft was published in April 2008 and there was virtually 
no two-way communication with those who worked on it. We gathered on 
legal-talk, we asked questions, we put up use cases, and most of them 
were not seriously discussed by *anyone* from the license working group; 
we had no feedback from *any* of the lawyers involved, and no interim 
versions of the license. Even the OSMF board did not know anything until 
some time in January. If you look at the legal-talk archives it may look 
like there were people talking about the license but the truth is that 
there was virtually no overlap between those who worked on the license 
(and talked to lawyers) and those who discussed on the list. It is fair 
to say that there has been next to zero community involvement in 
producing the 0.9 draft.

Now we have a new draft, where certain things have changed. Nobody 
involved with creating the draft has wasted *one* *single* *minute* to 
explain which changes have been made and why. The legal counsel's 
response to our "use cases" on the Wiki is thin, to say the very least. 
Many things that could be clarified within minutes in a proper dialogue 
have been drawn out to last months - for example, if the legal counsel 
did not understand something about our use cases, it would have been 
trivial for me or anyone else on the list to explain; instead we now 
read "I would need someone to talk me through this". Words that probably 
have been sitting in that document for two months before we even saw it, 
and words that will sit there for another two months before someone 
finds the time to talk them through it and get a response.

The recently quoted discussion on odc-discuss about share-alike 
extending to interim derived databases (something we all took for 
granted) seems to show that there are either major intentional 
differences between the April 08 draft and the just released 0.9, or 
that serious oversight was involved in preparing 0.9.

The fact that the new license is to be hosted by a body known as Open 
Data Commons is at most 2 months old (because the December board meeting 
still said "hosting options unknown, OSMF may need to host"); given that 
whoever is hosting the license has far-ranging powers over the license, 
this is not something to tick off lightly.

I'm all in favour of ODbL but I currently cannot by the life of me see a 
way how it could ever be put in force along the timeline published.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Matthias Julius]

Richard Fairhurst  writes:

> 80n wrote:
>> What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see 
>> sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?
>
> I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats.
>
> If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it
> take us to get back to the previous level?

It is not that simple.  What if those 5% is half of South Africa?  You
certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South
Africa.

Matthias

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/3 Gervase Markham :
> The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
> it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
> completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.


It may well be too quick. And given the fairly large questions people
have been asking I'm guessing you'll probably see this slip.
But it's been around for a lot longer than 1 month.

ODbL's been going around since last year at least in one form or
another... wiki evidence:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Open_Database_License&oldid=77255

Steve sent a link to that to talk on 4th Feb 2008:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-February/022861.html

Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Gervase Markham wrote:
>> 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which
>> it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make
>> sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed
>> away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release
>> (which seems to be planned for 28th March),
> 
> I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people 
> have to manage communication with communities other than English. But 
> where are suggestions being "brushed away"?

Nothing has been "brushed away" as far as I am aware; I just think there 
is a (considerable IMHO) risk that things will either be brushed away or 
at least be seen to.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Gervase Markham  wrote:
> The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
> it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
> completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.

We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to
do everything in 1 month.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/3 MP :
>>>I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some
>>>transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but
>>>we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming
>>>from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with
>>>some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from
>>>scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except
>>>the original data).
>>
>> You would have to be very careful about doing that.  I don't think it
>> would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete
>> it and then add it back.  Even if you were honest enough to close your
>> eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial
>> photography, it still looks very suspect.  And when deleting the
>> street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that
>> are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do
>> anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be
>> straightaway reconnected.
>
> Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not
> contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current
> data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with
> greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices
> around, splitting and merging the ways in the process.
>
> Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be 
> possible.
>
>> Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google
>
> Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have
> good data, just under different (but similar) license.
>

And what makes Google's data /bad/? Presumably that it's copyrighted
and we can't copy it right? Well, guess what... so's the cc-by-sa
data.


>> Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care
>> of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious
>> in removing possibly tainted data.  There is no point doing a relicensing
>> that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before.
>
> Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is
> lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl?
>

By telling them?
No body wants to loose data here. That doesn't mean we can just go
around violating our own license.


> Also, technically, when "mixing licenses", we won't have mashup of
> cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to
> relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense
> later under odbl. I think such "mashup" could work for short time
> (before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their
> data if we have no consent), once we have all "cc-by-sa with consent
> for odbl", we can just switch to odbl.

Sure, but somebody copying the data and then deleting the original
doesn't make it OK and "with consent". All this idea does is muddy the
water by inviting people to copy data and cause us problems.
If we have to delete stuff, we should delete it properly and keep
ourselves clean.

Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[MP]

> We can make sure the existing-people-problem doesn't get worse meantime
> by making people creating new accounts agree to dual licensing under
> CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0.

Perhaps give option to agree to ODbL also to existing accounts (though
do not make it mandatory for now). This could also solve some problems
if people leave the project in the meantime (perhaps because they have
already mapped their area of interest or whatever ...)

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

>>I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some
>>transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but
>>we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming
>>from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with
>>some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from
>>scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except
>>the original data).
>
> You would have to be very careful about doing that.  I don't think it
> would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete
> it and then add it back.  Even if you were honest enough to close your
> eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial
> photography, it still looks very suspect.  And when deleting the
> street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that
> are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do
> anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be
> straightaway reconnected.

Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not
contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current
data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with
greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices
around, splitting and merging the ways in the process.

Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be possible.

> Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google

Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have
good data, just under different (but similar) license.

> Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care
> of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious
> in removing possibly tainted data.  There is no point doing a relicensing
> that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before.

Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is
lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl?

Also, technically, when "mixing licenses", we won't have mashup of
cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to
relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense
later under odbl. I think such "mashup" could work for short time
(before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their
data if we have no consent), once we have all "cc-by-sa with consent
for odbl", we can just switch to odbl.

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] It's all too fast...

[Gervase Markham]

The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and 
it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a 
completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.

I don't advocate the N years that the GPLv3 took, but currently the plan 
says:

2nd March
 * Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments...

(So the deadline for commenting on the timeline has already passed? 
That's too fast on its own.)

12th March

 * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to
   date.

So all significant feedback has to be in within two weeks of the 
announcement? This is all far, far too fast.

Remember that:

- Some people don't log into or contribute to OSM every week; they may 
not even find out about this for a couple of weeks.

- We need to get input from communities which don't speak English; this 
requires things (including the licence) to be translated so they can 
comment on it.

As a straw man suggestion for comment, I suggest three months for 
comment and discussion, then a revision based on those comments, then 
another comment period, perhaps shorter.

We can make sure the existing-people-problem doesn't get worse meantime 
by making people creating new accounts agree to dual licensing under 
CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0.

Gerv


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Gervase Markham]

On 03/03/09 09:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which
> it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make
> sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed
> away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release
> (which seems to be planned for 28th March),

I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people 
have to manage communication with communities other than English. But 
where are suggestions being "brushed away"?

Gerv


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Gustav Foseid]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger wrote:

> The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the
> wiki
> page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is
> nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a
> license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data
> within?


What is an appropriate wiki page?

 - Gustav
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/3 Pieren :
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W  wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst  
>> wrote:
>>> 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get
>>> the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this
>>> percentage should be very small.
>>
>
> It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the
> license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the
> following questions:

As has been said, a lot of this is up for discussion of various
kinds... here's my brief attempt at answering... all responses are
just my interpretation... feel free to say I'm wrong :-)

> - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to
> the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument
> to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ?

No response == no... but they might change their mind later and ask
for their data to be reintegrated which really is /fun/. See next q
though.

> - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or
> single contributions ?

YMMV on this one. For cleanest DB you delete everything, for most data
kept we run the risk with small "uncopyrightable" contributions. Also
we may treat no response differently to no for this.
From now on I'm assuming a cleanest DB scenario...

> - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are
> only part of the history of objects, do you rollback  to a previous
> version of these objects ?

yes

> remove completely the objects if the
> contributor is the creator or the last modifier ?

yes for creator, revert for modifier

> only if the
> contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the
> object ?

yes

> - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the
> relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ?

or do you revert the relation to the point before the object was added
to the relation, or even to the point before the object was edited (as
otherwise your remaining relation maybe "derived" from the object).
Personally I think you're probably OK removing the object.
Does an empty, unreferenced relation serve any purpose? And if it
doesn't do we care?

> or you
> also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another
> contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of
> a relation where all members have to be deleted ?

relations are like any other object -- revert to the relation state
before the person edited, then start removing things from it.

> - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also
> delete the bot contributions ?

we can't tell the difference, so yes. But we may be able to mark most
of the edits as trivial and not remove them.

> - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other
> related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the
> deletion through Potlatch for instance ?

Nasty question :-)
Really the history should be deleted. You can leave a trace that
something happened, but details shouldn't be available, neither should
revert. We don't currently have a way to do that.

Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Ed Avis]

Thanks, what you wrote about hand-drawn cartography makes some sense.  There
might indeed be a case for removing the copyleft requirement for maps drawn from
the OSM data.  I don't believe however that wanting copyleft on the maps and not
on derived databases is a necessarily inconsistent position.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing
> of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will
> only require attribution?

The source data will be available for anyone.

So either the cartographer has invested a lot of time to artfully create 
a beautiful map that nobody else can make; in which case I'm tempted to 
say let him enjoy ownership of the result.

Or he has simply run some automated rendering engine, in which case 
anyone else can trivially do the same.

Share-alike starts to eat itself if it becomes too greedy. Results of 
"map image share-alike" are (a) map image does not get produced at all 
or (b) map image is produced and available to OSM for tracing data off 
of it. Neither helps bring OSM forward.

Bye
Frederik

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[wer-ist-roger]

> There were only very few news on talk/talk-de available for such an
> important thing as a license change.

I admit that I feal a little left out too but talk and talk-de are not the 
right place for leagel stuff. I assume that the "legal-talk" or "legal-general" 
discussed this a little more and these mailing lists are free for all. I 
didn't sign up for them because I'm just not a persone who knows a lot about 
legel things.
The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the wiki 
page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is 
nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a 
license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data 
within?

Roger

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Tobias Knerr]

Gustav Foseid wrote:
>> This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing
>> surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved
>> map images based on their data.
> 
> It could, potentially, even if I agree with Richard. I think it is important
> to explain why this change is to the better in the majority of the cases.
> [...]
> With the ODbL, the image of the map does not have to be free, but the data
> have to be shared. This means that the design elements are proprietary, but
> the data are easily available.

I agree. However, judging from some feedback on the German forums (where
I have explained exactly this situation), it seems that some users are
not going to accept the possibility of creating produced works under
non-free licenses, pointing out that the added value might not even be
because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating
the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the "free
world" with ODbL.

I don't think explaining that data is more useful for us than images
will help (I've already tried that), because that won't stop them from
demanding both.

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>Sent: 03 March 2009 2:55 PM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
>
>
>Pieren wrote:
>> It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with
>> the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer
>> the following questions:
>
>It's not been decided. What do you think should happen?
>
>Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan
>(co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: "It (like
>the
>rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion."
>
>Really, there's no evil force presenting a fait accompli here.
>There is no "you" or "them", only "us".

Its about time you added that tag to Map Features ;-)

>
>cheers
>Richard
>--
>View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-
>tp22245532p22310154.html
>Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1980 - Release Date: 03/02/09
>23:02:00


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> What you wrote above is a very good argument for it.
> 
> Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort.
> Anyone can do it and many already do so.  There are not many 
> people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to 
> make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial 
> and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because 
> rendering a map is so easy.

I think you're approaching that from a very programmatic perspective, and
this confirms it:

> (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map 
> or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what 
> colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was 
> used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking
about. What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The "program code" for
that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which
anyone can have - but that's incidental.

I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the
magazine every month. It isn't "rendering". It's entirely done by hand.
Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the
pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user
doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to
aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest!

http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_2.jpg
http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_3.jpg
http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_4.jpg

(There's no OSM data in there - and conversely, OSM doesn't have all that
data either; and even if the maps were CC-BY-SA, which they weren't, the
generalisation is such that CC-BY-SA doesn't give much useful return to the
project.)

Believe me, I first wrote a passable routing program with reasonably decent
weighting at the age of 19 or so (heh, I found a review -
http://www.thecompclub.org.uk/newsletters/12.pdf), and it was a whole host
more trivial than the n years of experience that have, I hope, given me the
skills to design attractive maps.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22311108.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst  systemed.net> writes:

>Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be
>licensed as copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has
>exclusive rights to their "added value" (colours, selection of data to
>include, and so on), which are clearly apparent from the map. These
>can be trivially copied.
>
>Under CC-BY-SA, a routing service does not have to be licensed as
>copyleft.[1] The author of the routing service does not have to
>disclose their "added value" (weightings for different types of road,
>any transformations applied to the data, etc.). These cannot be
>trivially copied: to do so would require reverse-engineering a
>near-infinite set of requests and you'd probably be banned for DoSing
>before that. ;)

>But I don't see how arguing for full disclosure by cartographers, but
>not by routing system authors, is tenable.

What you wrote above is a very good argument for it.

Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort.
Anyone can do it and many already do so.  There are not many people
who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to make the
result proprietary.  The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial and
doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because rendering a
map is so easy.

(In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map or
photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what colour
scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was used to
render the ways and the text, which is the hard part.  That code
doesn't have to be distributed.)

On the other hand, the data for a routing service such as road
weightings takes a bit of effort to get right and is something that
many companies wish to keep secret (while nobody thinks that map
coloration can be a secret).  If using OSM data meant you also had to
reveal your routing database, it might act as a serious brake on use
of OSM by the commercial routing services, and perhaps even in
academic projects.  Tele Atlas are quite happy to license their data
without insisting that you disclose your algorithms or weights, and if
OSM ends up being more restrictive then the companies won't use it.
No loss to them - only to us.

I support the principle of copyleft, but it is important not to get
too greedy.  Just because some seeming bad use of the data can
technically be prevented by a certain extra clause in the licence does
not mean that it should be.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Jon Stockill]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
> browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is "MDI".
> Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen
> windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find
> them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the
> best interests of some weird notion of "freedom", I guess.  very fast>

We have a screen full of terminal windows and access web servers with 
telnet :-P

Jon

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[wer-ist-roger]

> So, like Richard I don't like the idea of just tinkering with the css and
> layout. Better to be radical. Ideally a concerted effort for different
> people and web developers to come up with the look and feel and then
> compare the different versions. One is likely to win out, or perhaps more
> than one will be preferable, just like the German portal I am sure is
> probably used by many German speakers as their first point of call.

It is right that the German page want to be a more user friendly but I hope we 
don't get something like this for the internation page because the German 
version isn't quite that good (even though it's a step into the right 
direction). The map is just too small and there is just too much to see: 
comercial at the right and tones of links to the left and the bottom.
For that I allways link to the international page and not the german page if 
somebody wants to know more about the project or just want to take a look at 
the map.

I like the p4 mockup from the wiki-page. Some issues about this mockup have 
already been posted here so I won't go into that (I just mention missing 
wiki/help link and the "shop tab" - issu).
p1 is also quite good but still looks a little too much like the current 
version which makes it look a little old. But maybe it's not so bad to have a 
page which looks alot like the current one that the people recognise it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with 
> the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer 
> the following questions:

It's not been decided. What do you think should happen?

Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan
(co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: "It (like the
rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion."

Really, there's no evil force presenting a fait accompli here.
There is no "you" or "them", only "us".

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310154.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Gustav Foseid]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W  wrote:

> except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing
> of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will
> only require attribution?


That is hos the license is understood by most people, yes. Some questions on
the final wording are still outstanding, as you have probably seen.


> This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing
> surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved
> map images based on their data.
>

It could, potentially, even if I agree with Richard. I think it is important
to explain why this change is to the better in the majority of the cases.

It is no longer possible to make massive amendments to the OSM data set,
make a mp of this and not share the data. Previously, you had to share the
map image, including design elements like pictograms, but to get the updated
map data into the database again, someone would have to to georectification
of the map and trace the changes.

With the ODbL, the image of the map does not have to be free, but the data
have to be shared. This means that the design elements are proprietary, but
the data are easily available.

This also opens up uses where you can combine data sources with different
licenses. One example could be digital elevation models combined with data
from OSM, to make a good hiking map.

Two examples:

I want to make a map of Copenhagen, with some good beer pubs. I am a lousy
artist, and would like to grab some pictograms from istockphoto.com to make
a good looking map. This is not possible today, and the map will lack good
pictograms. I will also be adding some extra pubs and other information
which is not in the database today. If anyone want to add this extra
information to the database, so they will be available for other users, they
will have to do this manually and the project gains very little.

Cloudmade and Geofabrik have some nice looking stylesheets that I would like
to base the above map on. Even if the map tiles are available to me, they
are little of no use to me. I will need to customize some things, like
rendering of pubs and restaurants, and cannot use the tiles directly. The
share alike properties of these images is not worth very much to me.


I think the bottom line here, is that the _data_ are very much more valuable
than any image made with them.

 - Gustav
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:
> Could you expand that answer?  Removing cartography from the scope 
> of OSM's license would seem to deserve a better explanation than a
> dismissal like that.

Sure.

A printed map; an online routing service (like, say, YOURS,
OpenRoutingService, or CloudMade routing); and a dedicated satnav device all
perform the same function: they communicate a subset of map data to the user
in an understandable, friendly way.

Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be licensed as
copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has exclusive rights to their
"added value" (colours, selection of data to include, and so on), which are
clearly apparent from the map. These can be trivially copied.

Under CC-BY-SA, a routing service does not have to be licensed as
copyleft.[1] The author of the routing service does not have to disclose
their "added value" (weightings for different types of road, any
transformations applied to the data, etc.). These cannot be trivially
copied: to do so would require reverse-engineering a near-infinite set of
requests and you'd probably be banned for DoSing before that. ;)

It's an artefact of the fact we're currently using a "creative works"
licence - the copyleft therefore applies to creative works. ODbL is a
database licence, therefore the copyleft applies to data. ODbL is not
interested either in art or in computer source code. The really good thing
is that OSM therefore gets [2] the "added value", the data, in
computer-readable form from both - something CC-BY-SA doesn't offer.

You could, of course, argue the opposite of ODbL - that the routing service
author should have to publish their added value in full, just as the
cartographer does - and indeed Lutz.horn on the wiki has said exactly that.
I think that would be a very honest position to take, and if you're the kind
of guy who believes everything should be Free in the RMS sense, I respect
your opinion though it's obviously not one I share. But I don't see how
arguing for full disclosure by cartographers, but not by routing system
authors, is tenable.

I think Rob Myers summed it up well on legal-talk:

"It's a pragmatic step to ensure that what users of free maps actually need
(free maps generated using quality geodata) isn't denied by ensuring that
the subject of copyleft in the wild is something else (low-resolution maps
rendered from that data)."

cheers
Richard

[1] and indeed several aren't, e.g. CloudMade routing, OpenRouteService
[2] subject to the "bug" Frederik and I raised on odc-discuss yesterday, and
Dave raised on legal-talk today
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310036.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] images are Produced Works

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 11:29 +, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> > My position is that images are Produced Works, not a derived OSM
> > database.
> >
> > Rendered images are a creative work that requires skill and judgement.
> >
> > This is an important use case and ODbL Section 1 Definitions
> > specifically includes "images" in the definition of Produced Work.
> 
> Cool, I definitely agree with you on this, when considering the cycle map.
> 
> However, instead of rasters, what about vector images, e.g. SVG? To me
> they could be construed as mini databases, since they're a structured
> list of attributes and properties. I'd be interested in what you think
> on this.

Dear Andy,

I see SVG as just another image.  Raster or Vector; the image format is
not a problem.  The artist[1] wants to work in svg because it is the
best tool for the project at hand.  Subsequent artistic revisions of the
image may tilt and warp it or extrude it or turn it in to g-codes and
mill a 1:1 scale walk-through.  Don't restrict the image format.  

The problem is behaviour.  In this case the potential problem is Some
Jerk trying to use OSM database without living up to their license
obligations.  The tool used to do this matters not one whit.  Do not ban
all of the tools that could be misused; ban the misuse.  

Do not ban crayons because a child might draw on the walls.  

Best regards,
Richard

P.S.  OpenCycleMap is a wonderful gift to the community.  Thank you. 

[1] Was this made with raster, vector or both?  I don't care.  It is
beautiful.  This took skill and judgement to create.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Rutland_Map.png  


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Pieren]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W  wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst  
> wrote:
>> 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get
>> the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this
>> percentage should be very small.
>

It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the
license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the
following questions:
- do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to
the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument
to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ?
- do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or
single contributions ?
- if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are
only part of the history of objects, do you rollback  to a previous
version of these objects ? remove completely the objects if the
contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? only if the
contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the
object ?
- if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the
relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or you
also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another
contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of
a relation where all members have to be deleted ?
- if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also
delete the bot contributions ?
- after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other
related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the
deletion through Potlatch for instance ?

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[OJ W]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
> OJ W wrote:
>> This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are
>> doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-
>> reserved map images based on their data.
>
> Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell
> all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come
> on.

Could you expand that answer?  Removing cartography from the scope of
OSM's license would seem to deserve a better explanation than a
dismissal like that.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] form input field for "GPS Traces"

[Roman Neumüller]

I recommend to add a form input field for "GPS Traces" where a user can
easily search for a tag, let's say GPS tracks for Paris.
You can easily upload your tracks but you cannot easily search. I know that
I can of course type a tag into the browser's address field like

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Paris

But a normal user may not know it. And: if I write it wrongly like

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Pariss

or

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/Paris

I get:

   Application error

   Change this error message for exceptions thrown outside of an action
   (like in Dispatcher setups or broken Ruby code) in public/500.html

Roman

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Ed Avis]

MP  gmail.com> writes:

>I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some
>transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but
>we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming
>from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with
>some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from
>scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except
>the original data).

You would have to be very careful about doing that.  I don't think it
would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete
it and then add it back.  Even if you were honest enough to close your
eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial
photography, it still looks very suspect.  And when deleting the
street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that
are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do
anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be
straightaway reconnected.

Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google
Maps and randomly scattered it around the map.  But he added a
special tag to it so that people could later delete these tainted map
features and recreate them.  Even after the last bit of tagged data
had been deleted and re-added, could you really claim that the
resulting map was clean and legally sound?

If a mishmash of CC-BY-SA and ODbL licensed map data is workable, then
let's trace all the missing towns from Google Maps right now and mark
them with a special tag to be replaced later when we get round to it.
I'm sure the Google licence doesn't allow you to mix it with your own
data and release the result under a licence of your choice, but then
neither does CC-BY-SA or the permission grant made by users when they
sign up to the project.

Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care
of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious
in removing possibly tainted data.  There is no point doing a relicensing
that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:
> This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are 
> doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-
> reserved map images based on their data.

Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell
all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come
on.

cheers
Richard

(On a point of order, I don't believe ODbL _does_ allow all-rights-reserved
anyway; that's what the reverse-engineering clause is about.)
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22308562.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[OJ W]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get
> the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this
> percentage should be very small.

except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing
of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will
only require attribution?

This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing
surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved
map images based on their data.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:
>>
>>> Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name
>>> of
>>> the distributed rendering system.
>>
>> I see it as the name of the project - the t...@h project produces the
>> map, but the osmarender project leads to many different things, t...@h
>> being only one of them. Unless, of course, the t...@h guys have another
>> collective name for themselves?
>
> Well one key point of course is that I believe t...@h actually produces 
> several
> different renderings, all using Osmarender and t...@h but using different
> stylesheets ;-)

Gah! You've got a point. I guess Maplint is one of them. Looking at
their layers code, they name the main one "tile" and describe it as
"default".

http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/rendering/tilesAtHome/layers.conf

Ho-hum.

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO - layer names

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Chance wrote:
> It's not clear that it's the distributed rendering of the data that makes 
> one more "community" than the other.

That's not quite what I was thinking of - it was more the cartographic style
than the mechanics behind it.

The Osmarender layer tends to prioritise more POIs, more differentiation
among little details of OSM tagging, than the Mapnik one which is a very
focused "classic cartographical" approach - more so than most webmaps,
indeed, which is one of the reasons I like it so much. But certainly the
Osmarender layer is a fuller depiction of the breadth of our community.

So maybe
  "Classic style"
  "Community style"

would be clearer than a bald Classic/Community.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22308134.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, Derivative Databases & Produced Works

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/3 Richard Fairhurst :
>
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>> Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some
>> way? And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license
>> if it's actually intended to be that way?
>
> I think this is a serious error in the ODbL draft 0.9. (I believe Frederik
> is of the same opinion.)
>
> It wasn't the case in the previous draft of ODbL. I can only assume it was a
> drafting error in the revision.
>
> We raised it directly on the ODC list at
>   http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/date.html
>

Yay! I'm not mad :-)
I'll add that thread to my bookmarks.

Thanks,

Dave

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO - layer names

[Tom Chance]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:12:21 -0800 (PST), Richard Fairhurst
 wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>> Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two "main" 
>> styles that aren't just the technology that creates them?
> 
> Mapnik -> Standard (or maybe 'Classic')
> Osmarender -> Community

A good suggestion, although your choices are a bit loaded. It's not clear
that it's the distributed rendering of the data that makes one more
"community" than the other. The data is all community, as are the style
sheets more or less. Without getting into a lengthy explanation, all that
distinguishes the first two layers is the technology to render them and the
cartographic style. The next two layers are for a transport mode and for
mappers.

So on the simple basis that one technology came before another, and it's
all a matter of personal taste, and one style is the default:

- Standard map
- Classic map
- Cycle map
- Missing names (I can't help think this would be better as an overlay like
maplint)

Regards,
Tom

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

> A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping
> work would probably be a very good idea. "We're only loosing 5% of the
> data" is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data
> but because of the people behind that data.

Losing 5% of data will do much more damage than it looks - as we can
probably assume, that the 5% would be rather randomly distributed,
random 5% of objects would "disappear". Now you need to go through the
remaining 95% and check/remap it, especially for areas that are
already mapped "almost completely", to find out what was lost and
redraw it. People will be "stuck" for weeks/months checking the data
and repairing the damage - and some of them may get frustrated and
leave the project.

I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some
transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but
we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming
from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with
some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from
scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the
original data).

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, Derivative Databases & Produced Works

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some 
> way? And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license 
> if it's actually intended to be that way?

I think this is a serious error in the ODbL draft 0.9. (I believe Frederik
is of the same opinion.)

It wasn't the case in the previous draft of ODbL. I can only assume it was a
drafting error in the revision.

We raised it directly on the ODC list at
   http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/date.html

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/ODbL%2C-Derivative-Databases---Produced-Works-tp22307257p22307343.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, Derivative Databases & Produced Works

[Dave Stubbs]

I've been reading the Use Cases on the wiki and I'm confused. Can
anyone help me with where I'm going wrong?

I know there's still some discussion about when something becomes a
Produced Work so I'm trying to make the use case below a clear cut
Produced Work.

I download a substantial amount of OSM data to make my map, I then add
some extra data, change several bad road names, and correct some
geometry, all to improve the data (thus indisputably a derivative
database), and I then use this Derivative Database to create a paper
map (ie: a Produced Work) which I publish. The edited OSM data sits on
my hard disk, never to see the light of day.

The legal council says for a very similar Use Case: "The example
suggests that the map is a “Produced Work” that would require notice
under Section 4.3 of the ODbL; access to the “Derivative Database”
upon which the Produced Work is based would also have to be made
available".
Also a number of people on various lists have been asserting similar things.

So where in the ODbL does it say I have to publish that derived database at all?

I don't at any point publicly Convey the Derivative Database so 4.2,
4.4, 4.6 onwards does not apply unless I'm forced to publish. 4.5
explicitly states using a derivative database internally to an
organisation is not covered by 4.4. A Produced Work does not create a
Derivative Database for the purposes of section 4.4 either. And Using
a Produced Work is explicitly excluded from the definition of "Convey"

From 4.3:
"...You must include a notice ... as part of the Produced Work
reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses ... the Produced
Work aware that content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database and that
the Database is available under this Licence"

From reading that I think I have to state:
 "This map contains information from a derivative of the OSM database.
The OSM database is made available here under the Open Database
Licence (ODbL)"

And that's the end of my obligations.

Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some way?
And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license if it's
actually intended to be that way?

Thanks,

Dave

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Tom Hughes]

Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name of
>> the distributed rendering system.
> 
> I see it as the name of the project - the t...@h project produces the
> map, but the osmarender project leads to many different things, t...@h
> being only one of them. Unless, of course, the t...@h guys have another
> collective name for themselves?

Well one key point of course is that I believe t...@h actually produces 
several different renderings, all using Osmarender and t...@h but using 
different stylesheets ;-)

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Stubbs 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say
>>> "Mapnik".. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered
>>> using Mapnik anyway :-)
>>> I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is.
>>
>> Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two "main" styles
>> that aren't just the technology that creates them?
>> s/osmarender/ti...@home/ would be a start (osmarender is 'just' the
>> technology currently used in generating the t...@h map)
>
> I hate to point this out, but ti...@home is also just the name of part of
> the technology used.
>
> Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name of
> the distributed rendering system.

I see it as the name of the project - the t...@h project produces the
map, but the osmarender project leads to many different things, t...@h
being only one of them. Unless, of course, the t...@h guys have another
collective name for themselves?

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Tom Hughes]

Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Stubbs  wrote:
>>  I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say
>> "Mapnik".. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered
>> using Mapnik anyway :-)
>> I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is.
> 
> Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two "main" styles
> that aren't just the technology that creates them?
> s/osmarender/ti...@home/ would be a start (osmarender is 'just' the
> technology currently used in generating the t...@h map)

I hate to point this out, but ti...@home is also just the name of part 
of the technology used.

Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name 
of the distributed rendering system.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] images are Produced Works

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> My position is that images are Produced Works, not a derived OSM
> database.
>
> Rendered images are a creative work that requires skill and judgement.
>
> This is an important use case and ODbL Section 1 Definitions
> specifically includes "images" in the definition of Produced Work.

Cool, I definitely agree with you on this, when considering the cycle map.

However, instead of rasters, what about vector images, e.g. SVG? To me
they could be construed as mini databases, since they're a structured
list of attributes and properties. I'd be interested in what you think
on this.

Cheers,
Andy

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again

[Donald Allwright]

>Tracks known to be private (something the Ordnance 

>Survey do not show, and therefore something that could be a big advantage 
>over OS maps) could be overlaid by a transparent red line to indicate "do 
>not go here".

I personally would be very wary of this approach, as "known to be private" can 
be a matter of opinion. Some landowners go to great lengths to deny access to 
anyone on their land, regardless of whether there is a public right of way or 
not. I have seen big "Private" signs in places which aren't private at all. 
Just the other day I was approached by a security guard on an industrial estate 
and told it was private property and that I had no right to be there and would 
I please remove myself. I checked later on an OS map and it turns out that I 
certainly would have a right to be there as a pedestrian (although in fact I 
was in a car at the time), so we shouldn't just trust what someone with a 
vested interest tells us. For that matter, the road I live on is "unadopted", 
so could technically be described as private (as indeed many unadopted roads 
are), but it wouldn't make any sense to mark it as private on OSM.

Donald



  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again

[Ed Avis]

I am always coming across private roads, which are physically there but not
rights of way, and occasionally footpaths which are rights of way but not
physically passable!  I am surprised that a schema for representing this hasn't
been developed already.

I have seen access=private suggested for the former case.  Although often there
are privately roads which are still accessible to the public, for example the
track past some playing fields to a sports pavilion, or the pavement of London's
South Bank which is privately owned but a public space.

If you wanted to be fully general you would have a table of flags, for example a
bridle path:

  Physical   Designation
Foot  yesyes
Bicycle   yesyes
Horse yesyes
Motorcar  yesno

I think this is going too far.  I would be happy with designation=footpath,
designation=bridle_path, and designation=byway to mark ways which look unpaved
physically but are rights of way, and access=private to mark those which look
inviting but are in practice unusable by the public.

The in-between cases of a privately owned space which is open to the public
(like the South Bank) and a road which is not public but not completely
forbidden either (like a drive leading to a country hotel) I would be happy to
leave untagged.

There are also some where you're not quite sure if they are private or not, like
a track between two houses leading to a shared garage area.  I tend to map these
as highway=track, which fairly represents the physical condition of the road and
also gives a hint to the map reader that they might be semi-private.  I don't
feel a burning need for a tag to represent this, especially as IANAL and I don't
know exactly what the access rights are.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy Allan wrote:
> Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two "main" 
> styles that aren't just the technology that creates them?

Mapnik -> Standard (or maybe 'Classic')
Osmarender -> Community

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22306623.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>Sent: 03 March 2009 10:05 AM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
>
>
>SteveC wrote:
>> I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different
>> front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page
>> below.
>
>Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing
>at all.
>
>In a "let's ask for the stars" way, though, how about:
>
>- a little draggable "I've found a problem" icon - yeah yeah, OSB
>integration :)
>- something that says "Hey! We're a fun community!"; maybe two forthcoming
>events in tiny type?
>- some visualisation like Mikel's old activity tracker, showing where
>people
>have been editing recently - so you get a real sense of how alive the
>project is; would only want this at, say z1-10
>- as per Dave's e-mail: lots of visibility for "you get different views on
>the same data", maybe with a "More..." link to featured images, or a
>gallery, or something
>- downloadable Fake SteveC mascot for your desktop which installs some
>spyware and stuff like that
>

These are all great star gazing ideas, well, maybe excluding the last ;-)  

Whatever happens, my view is that it's not the converted mapper that needs
the focus of the front page. Most of us who are active with the project day
to day will always be looking at the map but rarely do we need to use the
front page or any of the other services. We probably have all those
bookmarked anyway. Instead the front page should be speaking to everyone
else, those we want to hook in (viewer or contributor).

So, like Richard I don't like the idea of just tinkering with the css and
layout. Better to be radical. Ideally a concerted effort for different
people and web developers to come up with the look and feel and then compare
the different versions. One is likely to win out, or perhaps more than one
will be preferable, just like the German portal I am sure is probably used
by many German speakers as their first point of call.

What the experienced community should probably do is set the target message
and focus ideas that should be incorporated. Richards's suggestions are a
good start. I'd add stronger local community building to the list since we
know that if you can build a local focus/interest group a lot more gets
accomplished and everyone has fun doing so.

Cheers

Andy 



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Stubbs  wrote:
>  I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say
> "Mapnik".. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered
> using Mapnik anyway :-)
> I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is.

Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two "main" styles
that aren't just the technology that creates them?
s/osmarender/ti...@home/ would be a start (osmarender is 'just' the
technology currently used in generating the t...@h map), and as you say,
the other three are all generated using mapnik (maybe postgis/mapnik
for the gnu/linux tards amongst us?) so having "mapnik" is a bit
weird, and I'm sure causes half the problems on the mapnik MLs where
people are actually talking about the main OSM rendering and not the
mapnik library itself.

Suggestions on a postcard?

Cheers,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind 
> the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that 
> has "open" in his name ...

If it helps, there _isn't_ anything going on behind the scenes... well, at
least not that I know of.

Post in German, or French, or whatever, on here if you like - we all have
Google Translate, someone will step up to translate manually, and it's a
million times better than not posting. Put stuff on the wiki. Ask questions.
Vent. Rant. Anything from a misplaced capital in ODbL to a serious doubt
about the entire licensing philosophy. Just say it.

Far, far better that you speak up and post "I'm worried about this
because...", even in Schwabisch dialect if you like, than you sit there in
silence thinking "there's this conspiracy to make OSM commercial and I feel
left out". Because There Is No Cabal. Look around you - who's organised
enough to come up with a conspiracy? If there was a conspiracy they'd be
doing it better. But OSM is at heart a disorganised rabble - that's why the
communication on the licence issue has been shit, yes, but that's also why
we've mapped large portions of the world, because you couldn't organise it
better than that.

I've said it a million times before but: there is no "you" in this project,
there is only "us". Of course, this might be why Steve thinks I'm a filthy
communist.

If I could cross-post this to talk-de, talk-fr, talk-it and the rest, I
would do.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22306472.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Tom Hughes]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
>> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>> IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
>>> browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is 
>>> "MDI".
>>> Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full 
>>> screen
>>> windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us 
>>> find
>>> them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is 
>>> in the
>>> best interests of some weird notion of "freedom", I guess. >> very
>>> very fast>
>>
>> That's a bit pot calling the kettle black though - back when I was
>> using Macs, which admittedly was quite a long time ago
> 
> Goodness me, it must have been - Macs have been like this since at least 
> System 7 in 1991ish...

I did say it was quite a long time ago ;-) System 7 and 7.5 IIRC, 
between about 1990 and 1993.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Hughes wrote:

> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
>> browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is "MDI".
>> Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen
>> windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find
>> them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the
>> best interests of some weird notion of "freedom", I guess. > very fast>
>
> That's a bit pot calling the kettle black though - back when I was
> using Macs, which admittedly was quite a long time ago

Goodness me, it must have been - Macs have been like this since at  
least System 7 in 1991ish...

Seriously, though, it does depend on the app. Right now I've got open  
TextEdit, Safari, TextMate, Cyberduck, Colloquy, Mail, Preview, and  
Terminal: the only ones I can imagine making any sense full-screen are  
possibly Mail and Terminal, and I don't think I've ever used either as  
such.

OS X, and System 7/8/9 before it, makes much heavier use of  
drag-and-drop between apps than Windows has ever done, and users are  
expected to think that way. (The classic Finder didn't have copy and  
paste for files, for example; it was assumed you'd drag from one  
window to another. It's only in OS X as a "borrowing" of the Windows  
paradigm.)

But Word and Excel borrow so much from Windows that they can make more  
sense full-screen, and the Adobe stuff is as ever a law unto itself -  
so many bloody floating palettes, one screen sometimes doesn't feel  
enough. (http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ is brilliantly observed and  
puts all our parody blogs to shame.) And even Apple have been getting  
a bit too full-screen for my liking with some of the iLife apps.

Where was I?

cheers
Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] canvec2osm v0.05 is now available

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi everyone!

canvec2osm v0.05 is now available to view & comment.

You can download it from the wiki

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canvec2osm

I have gone over in detail the 'transportation' and 'buildings &
structures' themes; thanks to those on the talk-ca list and everyone who
emailed me, its better now.
The other themes are also all entered & mostly good, but for this version it
isn't top notch.

And so, as a reminder like before .. please DONT upload any of this data to
OSM, as the script is not fully complete.

Cheers,
Sam Vekemans
Across Canada Trails

P.S. The best way i found is to open up a second window of JOSM and view all
the files at once so you can see it all. Then from the 1st JOSM window open
up just 1 file your interested in viewing.. then download the OSM area to
view what it would look like. Again, don't upload anything :-) I'm looking
for feedback on how these features can be better tagged.

--
Posted By Across Canada Trails to The Across Canada Trails Foundation:
Supporting the Free Garmin GPS Route
Mapat
3/02/2009 02:34:00 PM
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> "We're only loosing 5% of the 
> data" is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data 
> but because of the people behind that data.

Well, we always said "we have unlimited free labour" ,-)

> But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in 
> the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing.

The idea that the new license is somehow paving the way for OSM to "end 
up as a commercial thing" is utterly wrong, and whoever claims this 
should be hit over the head with a large cluebat.

However the fact that there seem to more such people than cluebats tells 
us that somewhere there's a lesson to be learned about communication. It 
seems that the new license effort, so far, has been a prime example of 
how *not* to do it.

Bye
Frederik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Tuesday 03 March 2009 15:51:51 Raphaël Jacquot wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:43:04PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>
> did you notice lenny has been out for half a month now ? ;)

does it work out of the box with lenny?

-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Ulf Lamping]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> There's three categories to consider relating to existing data.
> 
>> 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. 
>> 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. 
>> 3. Large organisations. 
> 
> I have a fourth category to add:
> 
> 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which 
> it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make 
> sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed 
> away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release 
> (which seems to be planned for 28th March), or people who have 
> legitimate concerns and find them answered with an "I don't know" from 
> the legal counsel and an "we'll press ahead anyway" from OSMF.
> 
> Having a proper process that takes our project members and their 
> concerns seriously, rather than holding a gun to their heads and saying 
> "agree to this license or go away", is not only important for keeping as 
> much data as possible, it is also, in my eyes, a requirement of project 
> ethics.
> 
> I can live with some data being lost. But I would like to avoid press 
> headlines like "20% of OpenStreetMap members quit over license row / 
> Disgruntled mappers say they feel ignored /  Fake SteveC: 'Crisis? What 
> Crisis?'" - I think *that* kind of thing would hurt us more than having 
> to redraw a few villages.

FULL ACK!!!

Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind the scenes 
and I think this is not the way for a project that has "open" in his 
name ...

There were only very few news on talk/talk-de available for such an 
important thing as a license change.


A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping 
work would probably be a very good idea. "We're only loosing 5% of the 
data" is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data 
but because of the people behind that data.

I must say that this is the first time that I'm seriously thinking about 
to stop my effort with OpenStreetMap completely and I'm feeling very 
sorry about that. But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in 
the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing.

You're probably not aware, but with the way the current license 
discussion is done you are spreading a lot of FUD on your own project :-(


Just wanted to let you know how the current actions are received from 
people not being directly involved in legal talk ...

Regards, ULFL

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch

[Raphaël Jacquot]

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:43:04PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

did you notice lenny has been out for half a month now ? ;)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Tom Hughes]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
>> Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, 
>> unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to 
>> think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time...
> 
> IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
> browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is "MDI".
> Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen
> windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find
> them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the
> best interests of some weird notion of "freedom", I guess.  very fast>

That's a bit pot calling the kettle black though - back when I was using 
Macs, which admittedly was quite a long time ago, everything ran full 
screen all the time and you were forever flipping back and forth between 
applications. All long after Windows had given you the ability to have 
multiple things open alongside each other.

Hell, even Windows 1 let you do that - it just could overlap the windows 
at all ;-)

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Tuesday 03 March 2009 14:07:11 you wrote:
> > as far as I know, all the dependencies are done (I installed mapnik
> > through
> > apt-get install python-mapnik)
>
> The current mod_tile code requires you to use a newer version of Mapnik
> than is available in the debian packages. I'm afraid you will have to
> compile an SVN version of Mapnik too.

well, tried that - all dependencies were satisfied, but then I got this:

src/graphics.cpp: In constructor 
‘mapnik::Image32::Image32(Cairo::RefPtr)’:
src/graphics.cpp:51: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member named 
‘get_format’
src/graphics.cpp:57: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member named 
‘get_stride’
src/graphics.cpp:60: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member named 
‘get_data’
scons: *** [src/graphics.os] Error 1
scons: building terminated because of errors.
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Richard Fairhurst]

SteveC wrote:
> I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different 
> front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page 
> below.

Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing
at all.

In a "let's ask for the stars" way, though, how about:

- a little draggable "I've found a problem" icon - yeah yeah, OSB
integration :)
- something that says "Hey! We're a fun community!"; maybe two forthcoming
events in tiny type?
- some visualisation like Mikel's old activity tracker, showing where people
have been editing recently - so you get a real sense of how alive the
project is; would only want this at, say z1-10
- as per Dave's e-mail: lots of visibility for "you get different views on
the same data", maybe with a "More..." link to featured images, or a
gallery, or something
- downloadable Fake SteveC mascot for your desktop which installs some
spyware and stuff like that

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22305733.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Hughes wrote:

> Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, 
> unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to 
> think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time...

IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is "MDI".
Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen
windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find
them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the
best interests of some weird notion of "freedom", I guess. 

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22305671.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Tom Chance]

Hey guys & gals, get these thoughts onto the wiki! I've added some already:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Front_Page

Thanks to Steve & the CloudMade designers for giving this some energy!

Regards,
Tom


On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:37:29 +, Dave Stubbs 
wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Celso González :
>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:16:21AM +0100, "Jonas Krückel (John07)"
>> wrote:
>>> Ian Dees schrieb:
>>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different
>>> > front
>>> >     pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below.
>>> > There
>>> >     are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by
a
>>> > long
>>> >     way.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  To get some conversation going:
>>> >
>>> > I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's
>>> > important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element
>>> > on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see
>>> > what's available. I also like the "Shop" link idea.
>>> >
>>> > After looking at all of the examples, Fp4.jpg seems to be the one
that
>>> > is the simplest and most eye-catching.
>>> >
>>> > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Fp4.jpg
>>> I also like that. Unfortunately i can´t find a link to the wiki :-) I
>>> think the wiki is very important and must get a big link.
>>
>> Yep in fp4 Wiki is missing and we have User diaries, News and Blog.
>> Without entering in
>> the opengeodata blog war i think they are similar things
>>
>>> I also like Fp1.jpg because of the news section. I would change "Edit"
>>> to "Edit Map"!
>>
>> I prefer fp1.
>>
>> Anyway I think the greatest thing of the new designs is to show the 'Map
>> Legend'
>>
> 
> 
> You mean like when you click "Map key" on the current front page?
> 
> That does bring up a valid point though -- the current page does not
> make the map controls obvious. The classic one is when you tell
> someone the front page has multiple styles. The little + sign is just
> ignored by most people (until you've encountered enough OL sites that
> use it... then you just can't help but investigate what layers they're
> hiding).
> 
> Some of those deigns go with the drop down approach for layer
> selection... I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say
> "Mapnik".. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered
> using Mapnik anyway :-)
> I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is.
> 
> Dave
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk