Re: [Talk-hr] Netko se pravi pametan...
On Utorak, 01. Prosinac 2009. 09:48:24 Dražen Odobašić wrote: Daklem, korisnik http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/uhs01/edits i http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/uhs02/edits koristi Google ili neku drugu podlogu za iscrtavanje, što je čisti piratluk. Činjenica da se to može napraviti ne znači da se to smije napraviti. Također to što se prijavio jučer i što je toliko ucrtao, znači da nije bez iskustva. Iako vjerujem da se ti podaci neće obrisati, smatram da to što taj korisnik radi nije uredu. Zašto se ti podaci ne bi obrisali? Je li tko kontaktirao abuse-službu? -- Poz, Dim uBlog: http://identi.ca/mdim Blog: http://akuzativ.wordpress.com/ ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
[OSM-talk-be] data error? errors with osm2gml.xsl
Hi, Just signaling a technical problem I had updating the 'antwerpen status' page. When using osm2gml.xsl on the data file of the north part of Antwerpen (Berendrecht/Zandvliet and north part of the harbour) it produced an error due to the following entry in the osm data: way id=45068245 visible=true timestamp=2009-11-26T15:04:10Z version=1 changeset=3220871 user=3dShapes uid=195219 nd ref=571468796/ nd ref=571468799/ nd ref=571468800/ nd ref=571468797/ nd ref=571468795/ nd ref=571468794/ nd ref=571468798/ nd ref=571468796/ tag k=natural v=water/ tag k=3dshapes:ggmodelk v=23/ tag k=source v=3dShapes/ /way the tag tag k=3dshapes:ggmodelk v=23/ is the one that produces the error. No idea what it does, or what it is used for. Perhaps the one that put it there knows or other more technical skilled people do. Dont know if it produces errors elsewhere. For now I just remove this tag and process my data without it. For the Antwerpen status page I do not need it. Luc / Speedy ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] data error? errors with osm2gml.xsl
For now I just remove this tag and process my data without it. For the Antwerpen status page I do not need it. Removing a tag just because a tool doesn't grok it, seems like the wrong thing to do. Unless you only removed it from your local data, of course, and not from the OSM db. There is nothing wrong with a tag named '3dshapes:ggmodelk' in OSM. The colon is used in various places in OSM tags, as a namespace delimiter. The tool needs to be fixed, not the data. By the way, I am the one that put it there. Be prepared for a lot more of these tags, near the NL border. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3dShapes for more info. The /Details page also explains 3dshapes:ggmodelk, and what you can do with it if you encounter it. Basically, it's the value an object had in the original dataset. If you're sure that what's imported is right (for instance, really a house, really a forest, really water), there's no harm in deleting the key for that object. -- Lennard ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] data error? errors with osm2gml.xsl
Yes, removed it from the local data :-) On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 12:11 +0100, Lennard wrote: For now I just remove this tag and process my data without it. For the Antwerpen status page I do not need it. Removing a tag just because a tool doesn't grok it, seems like the wrong thing to do. Unless you only removed it from your local data, of course, and not from the OSM db. There is nothing wrong with a tag named '3dshapes:ggmodelk' in OSM. The colon is used in various places in OSM tags, as a namespace delimiter. The tool needs to be fixed, not the data. By the way, I am the one that put it there. Be prepared for a lot more of these tags, near the NL border. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3dShapes for more info. The /Details page also explains 3dshapes:ggmodelk, and what you can do with it if you encounter it. Basically, it's the value an object had in the original dataset. If you're sure that what's imported is right (for instance, really a house, really a forest, really water), there's no harm in deleting the key for that object. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Yes it does. The LWG sought specific legal advise on this. We wouldn't be an open project if this was not allowed. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Yes. The fork must be under the ODbL. (I am not a lawyer, etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. Could a fork relicense the Content in a different way? As I understand it the Content is unrestricted by any license or copyright claim. Obviously any collection of the Content that forms a substantial amount would have to be wrapped in ODbL, so I'm not sure what it would mean in practice, but it seems that someone could re-publish an ODbL licensed database that contained Content that was restricted by a no-modifications clause or a non-commercial clause. I may not have understood the meaning of the Contributor Terms properly, but clause 2 seems to waive any rights in the Content from the contributors and I haven't seen anywhere that asserts any additional rights, so am I right to infer that the Content is not constrained in any way? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. Could a fork relicense the Content in a different way? As I understand it the Content is unrestricted by any license or copyright claim. there's nothing in the ODbL or contributor terms i can see that would forbid it, but part of the reason for that is the lack of basis in law for protecting individual (or non-Substantial amounts of) Content elements in most jurisdictions. it might work if copyright were asserted in the UK based on the sweat of the brow doctrine, but then you'd have to be very careful about not distributing it to the US and other jurisdictions where they follow a creativity doctrine. Obviously any collection of the Content that forms a substantial amount would have to be wrapped in ODbL, so I'm not sure what it would mean in practice, but it seems that someone could re-publish an ODbL licensed database that contained Content that was restricted by a no-modifications clause or a non-commercial clause. section 4.8 says, You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, the whole or Substantial part of the Contents, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License. [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. however, as you point out, this doesn't cover the Contents. i guess it's possible take the stance that there are no rights inherent in individual Contents (as in the US) and therefore any attempt to impose an ND/NC clause on the Contents isn't valid. I may not have understood the meaning of the Contributor Terms properly, but clause 2 seems to waive any rights in the Content from the contributors and I haven't seen anywhere that asserts any additional rights, so am I right to infer that the Content is not constrained in any way? yes, in non-Substantial amounts i believe so. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage as it wouldn't have that special license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage as it wouldn't have that special license. Hmm, also, my reading of the contributor terms is that the ODbL license is not granted to the public, but only to the OSMF. OSMF then in turn sublicenses the database to the public under the ODbL. Is this correct? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL / Licensing Working Group - Discussion Podcast
Matt Amos [1] and Mike Collinson [2], members of the LWG [3] together with Peter Batty [4], Richard Fairhurst [5] and Steve Coast [6] got together earlier today to discuss OpenStreetMap Licensing, ODbL and some of the licensing debate. http://www.opengeodata.org/2009/12/08/license-working-group-podcast/ Direct Download link: http://www.opengeodata.org/casts/2009/LWG.mp3 Please trim replies to legal-t...@. 1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Matt 2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ewmjc 3: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Licensing_Working_Group 4: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pmbatty 5: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Richard 6: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Steve or preferably: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk'); wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage
as it wouldn't have that special license.
Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors,
and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its
contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork
purely under the GPL doesn't have.
Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often important difference.
The Contributor Terms actually still aren't clear about what exactly *is*
happening. The ODbL only applies to the database as a whole, not the
individual data. The individual data is supposed to be licensed under a
different license.
Also, the ODbL is largely based on contract law, not copyright law. Who
would have standing to sue for breach of contract should the ODbL be
breached? All contributors, or only the OSMF?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk'); wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage
as it wouldn't have that special license.
Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors,
and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its
contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork
purely under the GPL doesn't have.
Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often important difference.
Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: The Contributor Terms actually still aren't clear about what exactly *is* happening. The ODbL only applies to the database as a whole, not the individual data. The individual data is supposed to be licensed under a different license. Or, in the terms of the license: The individual items of the Contents contained in this Database may be covered by other rights, including copyright, patent, data protection, privacy, or personality rights, and this License does not cover any rights (other than Database Rights or in contract) in individual Contents contained in the Database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's a subtle, but often important difference. Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please? because, when this issue has come up before, several people expressed concern about assigning copyright (or any other right) to the OSMF. there's a liberal license grant, but no assignment of rights. since people think it's an important issue, to avoid further confusion i thought it was important to point out that difference. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's a subtle, but often important difference. Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please? because, when this issue has come up before, several people expressed concern about assigning copyright (or any other right) to the OSMF. there's a liberal license grant, but no assignment of rights. since people think it's an important issue, to avoid further confusion i thought it was important to point out that difference. A transfer of copyright is a transfer of exclusive rights. In the US, and probably in other jurisdictions as well, it must be signed and in writing. One key difference is that someone who is granted a nonexclusive license does not have the power to sue for copyright infringement, whereas someone who is the recipient of a transfer of copyright can sue for copyright infringement - in fact, in the absense of a license to the contrary the recipient of a copyright assignment can even sue the person from whom the copyright was transferred. Additionally, in the case of an assignment of copyright, the original copyright holder can terminate the transfer after 35 years. This is not possible in the case of a nonexclusive license. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html However, it's unclear how this applies within the context of the ODbL, because the ODbL only covers the the database as a whole, not the individual contributions. Also, the ODbL relies largely on contract law, not copyright law, so the owner of the copyright is to a large extent not relevant. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CORINE Land Cover import in Estonia completed
Margus Värton wrote: Margus Värton wrote: I am glad to inform You that CORINE Land Cover data for Estonia is currently being imported. It takes some time and some manual or semi-manual intervention but in few days we should have much improved map data. CORINE Land Cover data import for Estonia completed, coastline and administrative boundaries being fixed manually. In addition to CORINE data administrative boundaries for Estonia itself, counties, parishes, cities, towns and villages imported from official data. Enjoy the results: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.3523lon=26.7218zoom=12layers=B000FTF. Congratulation! Emilie Laffray signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG
Grant Slater openstreetmap at firefishy.com writes: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ That summary page is great but unfortunately it's not what is on offer. The real text of the ODbL is much more complex, Quote from Creative Commons BY SA Summary Disclaimer: The Commons Deed is not a license. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the Legal Code (the full license) — it is a human-readable expression of some of its key terms. Right. Which is why I think you shouldn't compare the friendly summary pages as if that were a way to inform yourself about the differences between the licences. You need to look at the full text of both. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes: If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not giving anything back. Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the USA. If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current licence they would have done so. This suggests that the current share-alike provisions are working as intended. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you distribute OSM data, or a derivative of it. They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces the word node with nude throughout, I don't have to give it back or attribute OSM. I consider this a feature, indeed, a necessary freedom. If the licence doesn't allow you to make private modifications to the data then it's no longer free, in my opinion. In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the derivative, rather than the derivative itself. Right. Of course it is up to the user of that program to comply with licensing if and when they choose to distribute the data further. Is this really so bad? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: Can I also be sorry for being pedantic and point out an issue with the license. The OSMF decided to base themselves in the UK and is A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company Registration Number: 05912761 The Articles of Association [http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association] details the role / function of the organisation in detail, and offers definitions of words used. What is clear is that the decision to base themselves in the UK as a British Company means the 'legal language' of the OSMF is British English. Now for the pedantic part The proposed licence appears to be in American English, but doesn't state that. I think it is important that the 'core' or 'main copy' uses the language of the country in which this company has based themselves, and the same language as the 'The Articles of Association' At the very least its 'bad practice' to have your 'Articles of Association' in one language and your licence in second. It's a small issue to have someone suitably qualified read through the American license and translate it into British 'legalese', but something that should be done. Suppose you could move the foundation to the USA. It would also be worth looking at what Creative Common do, and provide the licence in several different languages. See the discussion on porting of the license: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-May/002464.html Please also note that this isn't an OSMF license. The license has obviously been developed with a lot of input from OSM based people and the OSMF, but it is meant to be general purpose open data license. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/8 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes: If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not giving anything back. Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the USA. If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current licence they would have done so. This suggests that the current share-alike provisions are working as intended. Google is already fighting several legal battles maybe they don't need the additional bad press? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes: If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not giving anything back. Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the USA. If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current licence they would have done so. Are you sure they haven't? Yeah, they haven't taken everything, unreviewed and unedited. But that would be a pretty bad idea anyway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
Grant Slater wrote: A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Yes it does. The LWG sought specific legal advise on this. We wouldn't be an open project if this was not allowed. That fork would have less options than OSMF has, though. Most importantly, it could only use the published ODbL data. It wouldn't have the rights granted by the Contributor Terms, namely publishing data as CC-by-sa or (with contributor support) any other open license. Considering that the LWG seems to consider these options strategically important, the fork would be at a disadvantage. I'm not sure about attribution, either. Wouldn't the fork have to attribute OSM as well, making attribution significantly less convenient? Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Anthony schrieb: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has different effects in different countries. And that is one of the exact problems with the ODbL. Under the ODbL, in some jurisdictions the database is protected by database, copyright, and contract law. In other jurisdictions, it's protected only by contract law. In the United States, which is a prominent example of anything goes, the ODbL would likely not hold up in a court of law anyway. First of all, unless there's some sort of click-through, there's no real indication of assent. Even if you want to argue that the TOS is binding (and that's probably going to be an expensive argument), it's only binding if the site you download the data from has the TOS. Then, once you prove that there's a contract in place, it's effectively useless. You can't sue for injunctive relief, that's just not a remedy available for breach of contract. You could try to sue for specific performance, but it's highly unlikely you'd get it. So you're left with a suit under a state law breach of contract and you get actual damages, likely nothing. OSM absolutely *should* be released under a license which is treated as similarly as possible in all jurisdictions. That license is CC0. I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all? It's not something that can be stolen. The data will always be there, even if some bad company comes and uses it. We don't have to protect our data to make money, like some company might have to, to pay their expenses. Even if some big company would use OSM to earn a lot of money without attributing, it would still be advertising for OSM, because it shows how much the data is worth. And everyone can make a free alternative, because even if the data is worth that much, it is still free. And after all, any licence that restricts the use to keep the data free makes it less free for many uses, including ones that most people would probably support. With CC0 and some non-binding contract that says please attribute OSM if you want to support it, there would be very few legal ambiguities. What troubles me is that nobody ever asked the community what they want. To just asume that everyone who joined OSM is happy with what CC-BY-SA tries to do (if it would for OSM), is wrong in my opinion: * People change their mind. They might have liked the licence in the first place, but after some time they might actually prefer another one. * People might not have realized what licence OSM actually used when they joined because they were so excited with all that free and open-data stuff. * People had no choice. They might have accepted CC-BY-SA just because there was no alternative. Whatever the reason is, contributors might have a different opionion on CC-BY-SA than what is assumed by some people. It probably wouldn't have mattered, since they, after all, agreed to the licence. But now we are changing the licence anyway. So why not ask the people who contribute to OSM what they really want? The result might be quite different from what some see as consensus, it might turn out to be exactly as expected, based on the fact that all contributors agreed to the current licence. But the fact is, we don't really know. Greetings ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensource=hpq=bsd+vs+gplaq=foq=aqi=g5 Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensource=hpq=bsd+vs+gplaq=foq=aqi=g5 doesn't apply to Geodata. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensource=hpq=bsd+vs+gplaq=foq=aqi=g5 doesn't apply to Geodata. Because...? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: doesn't apply to Geodata. Because...? Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect, which directly is what you also try to overcome... Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksen48ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0nLACfXx/T1yYnWXfkOgThxtKdFQy7 VnEAnAxqnTT32cSte4ToMqJMEQusXaSq =sOzE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensource=hpq=bsd+vs+gplaq=foq=aqi=g5 doesn't apply to Geodata. Because...? Same reason that CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to geodata. It mostly isn't protected by copyright law. The purpose of copyleft is to free data from copyright - not to force people to share. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: doesn't apply to Geodata. Because...? Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect, which directly is what you also try to overcome... So I can't license data because it's factual? Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to change that. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensource=hpq=bsd+vs+gplaq=foq=aqi=g5 doesn't apply to Geodata. Because...? Same reason that CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to geodata. It mostly isn't protected by copyright law. What do you think TeleAtlas and NavTeq think about that? Have they been wasting their time all these years? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: doesn't apply to Geodata. Because...? Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect, which directly is what you also try to overcome... So I can't license data because it's factual? There's no reason to license data if it's factual. The purpose of a license is to give permission to do something. You don't need a license if you already have permission to do it. On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Anthony wrote: Same reason that CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to geodata. It mostly isn't protected by copyright law. What do you think TeleAtlas and NavTeq think about that? Have they been wasting their time all these years? I think TeleAtlas and NavTeq don't like it, but they've learned how to deal with it. No, they haven't been wasting their time all these years. But their days are probably numbered. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: So I can't license data because it's factual? You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an analogy of GPL vs BSD. Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to change that. The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably the inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral. So try to win the battles you can win, otherwise maybe the best way forward is to ask the users if /any fork/ could continue with PD/CC0. What do you think TeleAtlas and NavTeq think about that? Have they been wasting their time all these years? Basically getting in contracts with users. Asking a per user fee for a mapping service. As pointed out by lawyers before, the only thing in OpenStreetMap that is getting protection by law is the rendered map, and where applicable the database. Same count for TeleAtlas and NavTeq. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkseox0ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3RQgCfY0ki/CXZRdemiq3apmybyVNN h2oAnA3JPXVsYcBZTx6kbCoa231AW1LY =Rdht -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: doesn't apply to Geodata. Because...? Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect, which directly is what you also try to overcome... So I can't license data because it's factual? There's no reason to license data if it's factual. You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It would help you if you separated them. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote: There's no reason to license data if it's factual. You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It would help you if you separated them. It'd help if you looked up the definition of license. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: So I can't license data because it's factual? You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an analogy of GPL vs BSD. Why not? It's incredibly similar. You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the GPL side. Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to change that. The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably the inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral. Sigh. Based on what? Based on that crappy poll? You have to be kidding. The universe doesn't only consist only of PD people on this list you know. There's a ton of people who are pro-SA and they tend to be the more rational ones who can't be bothered with yet another dumb poll or to comment back whenever someone brings up some pseudo-legal argument based on their 'university of life' education. So try to win the battles you can win, otherwise maybe the best way forward is to ask the users if /any fork/ could continue with PD/CC0. I would love to watch a PD fork slowly die. Please start one. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote: There's no reason to license data if it's factual. You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It would help you if you separated them. It'd help if you looked up the definition of license. Done. Now, I give you license to explain why? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: SteveC schreef: So I can't license data because it's factual? You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an analogy of GPL vs BSD. Why not? It's incredibly similar. You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the GPL side. Anyone that traces their trails might think this action is creative. If that was as creative as writing a computer program or an algorithm[1] that did this for you... then one probably understand that one is not making a Rembrandt. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapgenerator Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to change that. The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably the inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral. Sigh. Based on what? Based on that crappy poll? You have to be kidding. The universe doesn't only consist only of PD people on this list you know. There's a ton of people who are pro-SA and they tend to be the more rational ones who can't be bothered with yet another dumb poll or to comment back whenever someone brings up some pseudo-legal argument based on their 'university of life' education. The OSM universe doesn't end at the OSMF members either. So I wonder what you are trying to prove here with /your/ vote. Statistical relevance? So try to win the battles you can win, otherwise maybe the best way forward is to ask the users if /any fork/ could continue with PD/CC0. I would love to watch a PD fork slowly die. Please start one. If we can get into a contractual agreement that your... [oh nevermind] Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkseplIACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1W1wCeJgH2SgC3mxEcKHAdr1YrHBVr iwgAnj/p+jJHxF1a8A3NzuX9nKUy4mXx =qsVh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: SteveC schreef: So I can't license data because it's factual? You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an analogy of GPL vs BSD. Why not? It's incredibly similar. You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the GPL side. Anyone that traces their trails might think this action is creative. If that was as creative as writing a computer program or an algorithm[1] that did this for you... then one probably understand that one is not making a Rembrandt. Don't run away from the point. Stop switching between your legal and moral arguments. I know all about the legal side. Well done. The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting cases that you're cherry picking to help you. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapgenerator Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to change that. The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably the inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral. Sigh. Based on what? Based on that crappy poll? You have to be kidding. The universe doesn't only consist only of PD people on this list you know. There's a ton of people who are pro-SA and they tend to be the more rational ones who can't be bothered with yet another dumb poll or to comment back whenever someone brings up some pseudo-legal argument based on their 'university of life' education. The OSM universe doesn't end at the OSMF members either. So I wonder what you are trying to prove here with /your/ vote. Statistical relevance? Mine? It's the LWGs. Asking the membership is a very credible thing to do - ask those who care enough to be a member. They're the ones the OSMF represents. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the GPL side. I know you weren't referring to me when you said that, but I get the impression you think that's my position as well. Here's the thing. I'm not on the BSD side, morally. I'm a strong believer in copyleft (and I think that's the most appropriate term for the difference between GPL and BSD). But as I said before, I see copyleft as principle which deals with copyright, not a principle which deals with forcing people to share in the absence of copyright. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific. Well that doesn't work, and ODbL is the next best thing. So we all agree, yay! Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Anyone that traces their trails might think this action is creative. If that was as creative as writing a computer program or an algorithm[1] that did this for you... then one probably understand that one is not making a Rembrandt. Don't run away from the point. Stop switching between your legal and moral arguments. I know all about the legal side. Well done. Wait what? You are blaming me for giving you a full blown proof that a computer program can do the same as all the GPS tracers and I get slapped? So what *do* you want to hear? That these persons should be protected against theirselves for doing this work for free? The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting cases that you're cherry picking to help you. I don't *morally* want PD, I *morally* want attribution. And if companies or individual are sucking out only. The viral aspect will only affect what they produce, not what they bring back. Since the people that are against attribution INCLUDE the companies you want to open to; for example the broadcast industry, the choice is limited to *use* or *not use*. I go for the *use*, if the work is done anyway. Just because that Indian tracing on the otherside of the world could do something better with his time and energy. Mine? It's the LWGs. Asking the membership is a very credible thing to do - ask those who care enough to be a member. They're the ones the OSMF represents. And you represent the OSMF, so it is your LWG :) Next to that care enough to be a member, please... you almost make me cry. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkseq04ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3nDgCgkX4NXL8SsPWkwngcjtQBFwGJ wcoAoJWjsqgoFD4O38c3/1/gCS0/f8nq =5dem -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific. Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? and ODbL is the next best thing. CC0 is the next best thing. So we all agree, yay! Except that we don't. Actually, if I could use any license for my own personal works, I'd probably use this, which I think is morally equivalent to CC-SA, but a lot simpler: Copying, distribution, public performance, public display, digital audio transmission, and use of this work is permitted without restriction. Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction. Preparation of derivative works is permitted provided that you cause any such work to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Of course, it's based on US law. So while it's fine for my works, it's not the best for an international project. So it's great that we had Creative Commons to come up with an international equivalent. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting cases that you're cherry picking to help you. I don't *morally* want PD, I *morally* want attribution. There you go! Everything else is window dressing to support your moral argument. Now I can in good conscience point you at the decades of BSDvGPL argument. Why do you want to sit around repeating it? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific. Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? See legal-talk ad nauseum. and ODbL is the next best thing. CC0 is the next best thing. It is if you like BSD. But I like CCBYSA and the GPL. So I like ODbL as the next best thing. So we all agree, yay! Except that we don't. So what are you hoping to achieve in debating this? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific. Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? See legal-talk ad nauseum. Done. Now, I give you license to explain why? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific. Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? See legal-talk ad nauseum. Done. Now, I give you license to explain why? You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the list and the wiki... which you probably know because you're just trolling. But I like feeding trolls. You can be my pet troll. I name you trevor the troll. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Ed Avis wrote: Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the USA. If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current licence they would have done so. This suggests that the current share-alike provisions are working as intended. No, it suggests that our US data, on aggregate, is an abominable heap of crap compared to that which Google can generate for itself. I'm not decrying the hard work of our US mappers and those who have worked with them. Much of our UK coverage is a heap of crap compared to the Ordnance Survey's, too. But Google use our US data? You have to be kidding. You can't route with it. The raw TIGER geometry looks like a bunch of baboons let loose with crayons. There are interstates which have one carriageway where there should be two, and crossroads where there should be overpasses. And so on. Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26699654.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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the list and the wiki... There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA doesn't work, but that doesn't make them true. The only plausibly credible claim as to why CC-BY-SA doesn't work is that the database isn't copyrightable in the first place. But 1) that's not strictly true, the database is copyrightable, to some extent, in some jurisdictions. And 2) there's no harm in giving a license in a case where the copyrightability of the work is unclear and/or disputed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the list and the wiki... There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA doesn't work, but that doesn't make them true. Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the list and the wiki... There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA doesn't work, but that doesn't make them true. The only plausibly credible claim as to why CC-BY-SA doesn't work is that the database isn't copyrightable in the first place. But 1) that's not strictly true, the database is copyrightable, to some extent, in some jurisdictions. And 2) there's no harm in giving a license in a case where the copyrightability of the work is unclear and/or disputed. Now, please accuse me of making a strawman argument. Because that's what you forced me into, by having me respond to legal-talk ad nauseum, as opposed to your own well-reasoned argument. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense? Who's Trevor? I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong. But until you give me exact quotes, in context, from the two that helped the LWG, I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were wrong in this particular instance. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Ed Avis wrote: Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the derivative, rather than the derivative itself. Right. Of course it is up to the user of that program to comply with licensing if and when they choose to distribute the data further. Is this really so bad? Do I think it's bad? Everything I contribute to OSM is PD. Of course I don't. But the point is that by using this loophole, I can create a map which contains proprietary data/other elements, and is unattributed. The user _cannot_ choose to distribute it further: to do so would break the conditions of CC-BY-SA, as the proprietary elements cannot be relicensed. This, to me, seems to be entirely against what CC-BY-SA seeks to achieve. Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26699822.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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting cases that you're cherry picking to help you. I don't *morally* want PD, I *morally* want attribution. There you go! Everything else is window dressing to support your moral argument. Now I can in good conscience point you at the decades of BSDvGPL argument. Why do you want to sit around repeating it? Is it? I'm currently perfectly fine with the fact that attribution is guaranteed by the OSM license currently used. I'm not fine with the fact I cannot share with people after a license change because they don't want to adopt a new license :) Because I do care; 4.5 basically kills your SA argument... Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksesbwACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn29CgCfW1URl96VtF3VZN5Tgq2t86Tq cSQAmQEzZbd0fknO4UF3jWCiz5wStdUH =pY9F -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific. Well that doesn't work, and ODbL is the next best thing. So we all agree, yay! Yours c. Steve I'm sick of hearing CC-by-SA doesn't work You can't even prove this assertion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense? Who's Trevor? I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong. But until you give me exact quotes, in context, from the two that helped the LWG, I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were wrong in this particular instance. CC-BY-SA doesn't work is not the kind of statement I think some people with actual law degrees are any more qualified to answer than anyone else anyway. Not until you define what it means to work. That's the part I'm sure we disagree on. IMO opinion, CC-BY-SA, like the GPL (which states it explicitly) is intended to guarantee your freedom, not to take away your freedom. So the fact that CC-BY-SA doesn't take away your freedoms, like the ODbL does, is IMO a feature, not a bug. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the list and the wiki... There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA doesn't work, but that doesn't make them true. Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense? Until anyone has been, or is sued. Anyone with a law degree defending a statement is at most an advocate. The judge (in a fair legal system) has the only final word on them, if you don't want to wait for that thats ok with me. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkseslMACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1aYACgkHz02a+AELsBe5jK06f0/tVh nTcAnRHlEYBMG1cpWgDRN2pbim0qJq98 =GYQP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense? Who's Trevor? My pet troll, see below: I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong. But until you give me exact quotes, in context, from the two that helped the LWG, I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were wrong in this particular instance. troll trolly troll troll We're now in the land of relativism where to make a point I have to go and collect quotes from lawyers, which you probably won't believe anyway, when everyone knows that CCBYSA is broken for OSM and the case has been made 100 times. Including by those previously mentioned lawyers. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: In my opinion, CC-BY-SA, like the GPL (which states it explicitly) is intended to guarantee your freedom, not to take away your freedom. I should add the phrase to share and change the works. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: troll trolly troll troll How can I argue with such erudite points? We're now in the land of relativism where to make a point I have to go and collect quotes from lawyers, which you probably won't believe anyway, when everyone knows that CCBYSA is broken for OSM and the case has been made 100 times. Including by those previously mentioned lawyers. As I said, I wouldn't take a lawyer's word that CC-BY-SA is broken anyway. First you have to define what it means for it to work. You're confusing the legal with the moral. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense? Who's Trevor? I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong. But until you give me exact quotes, in context, from the two that helped the LWG, I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were wrong in this particular instance. CC-BY-SA doesn't work is not the kind of statement I think some people with actual law degrees are any more qualified to answer than anyone else anyway. Not until you define what it means to work. Yes nobody would ever say anything even remotely like that if they had a law degree, would they? That would be nuts. http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24494.html Oh, oops. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Liz wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it to be SA. Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific. Well that doesn't work, and ODbL is the next best thing. So we all agree, yay! Yours c. Steve I'm sick of hearing CC-by-SA doesn't work You can't even prove this assertion. No because I don't have a law degree, but those who do, can http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24494.html Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Anthony wrote: CC-BY-SA doesn't work is not the kind of statement I think some people with actual law degrees are any more qualified to answer than anyone else anyway. Not until you define what it means to work. Yes nobody would ever say anything even remotely like that if they had a law degree, would they? That would be nuts. http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24494.html Oh, oops. I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else. In any case, ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems might be a legal statement. Can't tell without the context. By the way, what version of ODbL was this statement referring to? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else. So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal arguments than anyone else? Presumably you ask a plumber to fix your car and a mechanic to prescribe you medicine... Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else. So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal arguments than anyone else? CC-by-SA doesn't work isn't a legal argument. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? See legal-talk ad nauseum. I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work simplification of the argument does not assist anyone. It may not protect data from copying The data is not subject to copyright throughout the entire world. The database can be protected from copying with this new licence. That the data within the database can be protected from copying with the new licence is not proven Whether the majority of contributors, who under the current scheme are the copyright owners of the data, want to protect the data is not proven and whether the majority of contributors want to pass the copyright of that data to OSMF is not proven. I can accept that that OSMF believes that it should replace CC-by-SA because it believes the data has to be protected. Then we have to consider the conflicts of interest which exist on the OSMF Board, and the debate concerning the recent election. Anyone can be a contributor to OSM without hearing of the OSMF for a prolonged period of time. You can't fairly deduce that only 265 people care enough about OSM to join. It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote, and even that vote dumbed down to a single question. Elisabetta the Fair ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else. So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal arguments than anyone else? CC-by-SA doesn't work isn't a legal argument. CC-by-SA doesn't do what SteveC wants it to do, now that might be a legal statement. Of course, it's a legal statement I'd agree with. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Liz wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: Well that doesn't work, Why doesn't it work? See legal-talk ad nauseum. I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work I've not seen anything proving that Elvis is dead. Do you want a mathematical proof or something? I think we're as close as you can possibly get. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Ticket on trac fixed properly ???
Someone fixed my request to render leisure=dog_park on osmarender, but neither the node nor the areas are visible on the map. My suggested icon attached with the ticket, was for the nodes (POI) and for an area i suggested a pattern with a green park like, and dog icons inside. Do you think the changeset was done properly? http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/18948 ps: tried to render, on my pc with xmlstarlet and the new rules, a map area with a dog_park area; but nothing appeared. i searched for a guide on the wiki, but there is a lack of informations about symbols as patterns in areas http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender/Symbols#Symbols_as_patterns_in_areas -- www.openstreetmap.org - Io mappo il mio quartiere, tu mappi il tuo, tutti quanti insieme mappiamo l'intero pianeta ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Why the BSD vs GPL debate is irrelevant to OSM
Hi, this would normally be a posting for legal-talk or so, but since the topic has been brought up here on talk, I'll respond here. I wasn't about to revive the debate. I prefer PD but I'll support the move to ODbL. I'm not trying to convince everyone that PD is better. However, I feel that the PD cause has been gravely misrepresented by people claiming (a) that PD vs ODbL is like BSD vs GPL, and (b) that BSD is dead. I'm not going into the details of (b) which is obviously wrong; I want to explain why (a) is wrong, which is less obvious. Many people think: Share-alike has proven it worth in other areas, so it must be good. - It is certainly true that share-alike works in some areas. Computer programs and works of art come to mind. Let us first look at computer programs: Since the GPL (GNU Public License) was invented, the Free Software Movement has had a huge success developing an enormous amount of high quality software. Much of this software is GPL or under some other kind of share-alike license. If you look at the software stack on a modern computer, you see the kernel, above it libraries and then the application programs. The most popular free kernel is the Linux kernel which is under the GPL, but libraries and applications used on top of a Linux kernel don't fall under the GPL restrictions. (They may be GPL licensed but they are not GPL licensed *because* they run on a GPL kernel.) Some licenses are LGPL, allowing non-GPL software to use them. So there is ample precedent that it is good for basic components not to dictate the licensing of stuff that is built on top of them. Share-alike is always a two-sided sword; you make life more difficult for some of your users (e.g. those who want to build a modified Linux kernel), in order to make life easier for others (the Linux users who know they will get access to any kernel modifications). This share-alike element has to be balanced in order to work; if you make *too* many demands of those building a modified kernel, they'll just not do it, giving a sub-optimal result for the whole community. The overwhelming use of a Linux kernel is in a collective situation - you use the kernel as-is, together with other bits and pieces, to make up a working computer system. The majority of people don't want to take the kernel apart an modify and extend it, and thus are completely unaffected by the share-alike component of the license - even though they of course do lots of things on their computer that they couldn't do without the Linux kernel. Another very similar example is the Creative Commons movement. There are many photos and pieces of music and even films out there that come under a Creative Commons Share Alike license and the model is commonly considered a success. It is great that I can use a photo I find on flickr in a presentation. Its great that I can use a piece of music in a podcast without problems. And my whole presentation or podcast doesn't have to come under the same license as the original work just because of that. Again, as with the Linux kernel and the stuff that people build on it, I can choose any license they want for the presentation or podcast. Sure, if I use some CC-BY-SA image and change it a little bit, I can't change the license. But the overwhelmingly predominant use of Creative Commons licensed work is not in this way, but by including the work in some larger work where the collective work instead of the derivative work rule gives me the right to do anything I want. Now back to OpenStreetMap. A very typical use of OSM data at the moment is to create maps from it and then build some kind of application on top of that. The map is still CC-BY-SA, the application on top of it isn't. Here as in the case of a photo used in a presentation, the license for some part doesn't infect the whole. But there are many many more uses of this data. Taking the OSM data and mixing it with other data from outside is where the interesting and new applications lie, and what you will likely be doing for routing or geocoding or location-based services or anything else of interest. This is something different. This doesn't happen that much in the world of art or the world of programming. The intimate mixing of sources, or thorough processing of one source, makes a lot of sense with the data. Ask yourself the question: How much more likely is someone to mix data from several geodata sources than to re-mix a few CC-BY-SA licensed music tracks? This means that any share-alike provision we slap on OSM data has a much more direct influence on the potential uses of the data than a share-alike provision on software on on creative works has. ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting produced works from the share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data. To recap; the share-alike component in
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SotM10 meeting: choosing the venue
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Henk Hoff o...@toffehoff.nl wrote: Hi all, Later today the organizing committee will meet to (hopefully) decide on the venue of next year's State of the Map. There are bids from Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. You can see them all at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010/Bid If you also want to join this meeting, let me know at henk#stateofthemap org, and I'll send you the details how to dail in to this meeting. The meeting will be at 8pm GMT (that is 9pm for mainland Europe). Cheers, Henk Hoff Since we didn't see an annoucement on the list I assume a decision have not been taken yet. There will be another meeting? And if yes, when? Thanks, Ciprian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch. You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkseuqcACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn32RgCfSHYvAqslXMz79sfj1DbpV2Pw 8iYAnjbgGh6LnolU78pTOQ/+Cma4a5LW =OC0d -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksevF4ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1MwQCfX2V0LyMh3oDAH8KNLXRhPR/G ysAAn0y/IAZo4o7Jqm7DIuUKMBX+N1po =kc1P -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about their data to be worth a vote The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be able to choose what to do with their data. Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch. You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? From something that doesn't work to something that does work? Why not? No, I'm not advocating it, because I haven't been convinced that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? This is the /only/ way to prove that CC-BY-SA is enough to have your original data protected. If the outcome of such case would be that it was legally sound to do so, you can victoriously claim that what the OSMF was in the best interest of the project. ...but if the case was actually lost. CC-BY-SA would be suitable for OSM, nothing changes and everyone is happy. Now this is the point where the positive people come around again. But the BBC can't use our pretty pictures. Then the SA people should say: we don't care they don't share. Your wish for consensus makes by definition your statement pro the change based on 'CC-BY-SA is not enough' a thing that people like me never buy unless there was a valid example where it actually /wasn't enough/. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksevxgACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn234gCghLGJcgso9/mvnnK4GU+u94Mi BT0AnjIsTR6+Gs00NHAhUqLEKgMoHkJQ =HVqv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? This is the /only/ way to prove that CC-BY-SA is enough to have your original data protected. If the outcome of such case would be that it was legally sound to do so, you can victoriously claim that what the OSMF was in the best interest of the project. Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? What do you mean change the license? Isn't your position that CC-BY-SA is invalid in the first place? The OSMF doesn't need permission to make a contract between itself and users of its websites. At least, not if you think that whole You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. doesn't work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Steve, I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds, let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :) Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in your words, because it is different disscussion and different situation. Otherwise it really sounds like pushing change by someone who are spent too much time in legal-talk. And we know what legal-talk does to the people. Laws aren't physics, get over it. They will never be clean and shut. Cheers and good luck, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Steve, I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds, let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :) Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in your words, because it is different disscussion and different situation. Have you seen this? http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and this? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Stefan, Stefan de Konink wrote: Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. This is factually correct, but would you not expect a degree of friendliness over and above the call of law from those who run the project you contribute to? I don't think that sorry guys, we tricked you into contributing under an invalid license, now all your stuff is basically PD anyway and we're going to relicense it in any way we want is an attitude that would attract anyone to the project! And I don't think you are honestly suggesting that either. 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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. Yes, it's all an evil cloudmade plot! As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies so we could do what we like with the data. But that would not equal a sustainable OpenStreetMap. Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ticket on trac fixed properly ???
Hi, Someone fixed my request to render leisure=dog_park on osmarender, but neither the node nor the areas are visible on the map. The someone was me. It most likly doesn't appear yet because most clients haven't updated yet. My suggested icon attached with the ticket, was for the nodes (POI) and for an area i suggested a pattern with a green park like, and dog icons inside. You should get something like your icon (in one quarter the file size) for the POI and at the center of the area plus a green area. Do you think the changeset was done properly? http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/18948 Looks fine to me. What exactly do you consider broken? ps: tried to render, on my pc with xmlstarlet and the new rules, a map area with a dog_park area; but nothing appeared. i searched for a guide on the wiki, but there is a lack of informations about symbols as patterns in areas http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender/Symbols#Symbols_as_patterns_in_areas Short version: pattern are damned hard to get right. Most likly it's not worth the effort. Oh and by the way: You could have reopened the tiket instead of annoying everybody on the talk list. You behaviour makes me question my decision to implement your feature request. Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) Especially related some recent cases over here with the claim This was our intention the intention for OSM is extremely clear. But maybe I can discuss this with a company that might want to try it. Nope not Google. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksewrMACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn11yACgjWzWzqg+d98BBowolLCwQ9f7 hWsAoIpon7KxUpH/cuTdkjQQyKVrntkp =BgE2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why the BSD vs GPL debate is irrelevant to OSM
Another very similar example is the Creative Commons movement. There are many photos and pieces of music and even films out there that come under a Creative Commons Share Alike license and the model is commonly considered a success. It is great that I can use a photo I find on flickr in a presentation. Its great that I can use a piece of music in a podcast without problems. And my whole presentation or podcast doesn't have to come under the same license as the original work just because of that. Again, as with the Linux kernel and the stuff that people build on it, I can choose any license they want for the presentation or podcast. Sure, if I use some CC-BY-SA image and change it a little bit, I can't change the license. But the overwhelmingly predominant use of Creative Commons licensed work is not in this way, but by including the work in some larger work where the collective work instead of the derivative work rule gives me the right to do anything I want. Frederik, This is, IMHO, the most fundamental question in this discussion- what the distinction is between a derived work and a collective work? In your example of a presentation, I can see what you mean quite clearly: A picture in a book could hardly be considered the entire book. And for software, we have interfaces which define how various software components talk to one another, so the distinction is also clear. I'm less clear about this distinction with a map. Let's say I'm an academic and I want to use OSM as part of my research. As part of my university project, I use sensor data to collect various information. Then I combine this data with data from OSM and make calculations based on my findings- say temperature based on proximity to certain types of amenities offered in the nearby stores. I don't have a clear sense of whether the resulting data is a collective work or derived work. Knowing the answer to this, even if the answer is no, is a good thing- it will people a clear sense of what's going on and reduce the concerns based on the unknown. Now back to OpenStreetMap. A very typical use of OSM data at the moment is to create maps from it and then build some kind of application on top of that. Personally, I think this will change, and OSM could become a vital component in larger projects, such as that described above, or possibly used as a data source such as is so often discussed by semantic web utopians. But then again, I'm often wrong. :) ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting produced works from the share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data. I can't speak for others, but the concern I have is just knowing what is, and isn't allowed. This isn't dissimilar to what SteveC and others have said about FUD. In the absence of information, fear naturally arises. Fear isn't productive. I want to emphasize that I also agree with you that OBbL is better than what we have now, and given the choice between what we have now and ODbL, I'd choose it. At the same time, I wish there was more information on the practical implications of this change. How will it protect us in ways CC-BY-SA doesn't now? (this has actually been discussed a lot). What effect (if any) would ODbL have on academics? Would it make it easier for them to use our work? Harder? The same? What effect (if any) would ODbL have on governments using the data, etc? We currently do imports, but how could we use the OBbL to give data back to the governments? I want to emphasize that these questions aren't all negative- they're more how questions then why. I think that there's a lot to be said for the discussion that's come out of the legal group- but I think there are remaining questions which, when answered, could put a lot of people's fears to rest. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. Yes, it's all an evil cloudmade plot! I never said anything about it being evil or a plot. I don't blame you for wanting a license which is best for you. As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies so we could do what we like with the data. Yeah, but it'd be a *lot* better for some of the other companies (like, maybe 10^100) than it would be for CloudMade. Anyway, why would it be better for OSM to move to PD? I thought CC-BY-SA didn't work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can? Yours c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
2009/12/8 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: SteveC schreef: You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone? Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so? to do what, relicense? Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change the license? I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even with all the ups and downs. Steve, I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds, let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :) Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in your words, because it is different disscussion and different situation. Have you seen this? http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and this? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes Yours c. Steve So, in nutshell, CC-BY-SA, or even worse, copyright law itself doesn't protect OSM database, because it's database of facts and it doesn't work in lot of juristictions. More or less in those juristictions OSM data are effectively not copyrightable and therefore their usage and distribution can't be controlled by copyright law. p.s. btw, in my country database of facts IS copyrightable and I think it's the same with rest of EU (correct me if I am wrong). So in fact that means no license with basis in copyright term and law can't be used? And therefore you are offering ODbL? ODbL restricts usage trough.? Please explain futher :) p.s. Steve, I am not against Cloudmade or license change, and I understand problem. I just think it is not explained carefully again, again and again. I know, it sucks, but that's the life. And I am worried about mass imports who are done under CC-BY-SA. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Frederik, Frederik Ramm schreef: Stefan de Konink wrote: Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place. This is factually correct, but would you not expect a degree of friendliness over and above the call of law from those who run the project you contribute to? If we can get sponsors for servers maybe a sponsoring for a legal case wouldn't be a bad idea at all. If the OSMF could make a clear statement 'if CC-BY-SA holds we are not going to change it', the friendliness is there and it will be in all our best interest. I don't think that sorry guys, we tricked you into contributing under an invalid license, now all your stuff is basically PD anyway and we're going to relicense it in any way we want is an attitude that would attract anyone to the project! Hey SteveC tricked us all in here! Not to blame the rest of the board. ;) And Steve, I am still thankful I ended up in this project when I was Googling other people collecting GPS trails :) And I don't think you are honestly suggesting that either. The point that Steve makes is based on the fact he can't trust the CC-BY-SA anymore for the function he has used it before (mainly no other licenses being available). The only way to prove this would be a case. And don't forget, if a full database dump is made available under CC-BY-SA knowingly it is all PD, wouldn't that be a MUCH worse situation in this respect? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksexI8ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0ZDgCfUL+uJ7xIIsxz8MKIfThP6rxt 8TMAoIB6EHSzIe8ZHMRJGhqNbCxYypJw =SuxJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. this is ridiculous, CM has done so much for osm. If you have a problem with CM name it instead hiding behind a endless license discussion. ___ 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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can? A reasonable argument would go a long way. Much further than out-of-context ambiguous soundbites. Of course, to really be 100% convinced it'd probably take a Supreme Court ruling, and that'd only 100% convince me with respect to the United States. And then, there's the equally ambiguous question of whether or not the ODbL *would* hold. If OSM is considered public domain in the United States, it's fairly unlikely ODbL is going to change that. Of course, I'll be watching the Derrick Coetzee/National Portrait Gallery situation closely to adjust my sense of that one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.comwrote: Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote: Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? I think you hit the nail on the head. this is ridiculous, CM has done so much for osm. If you have a problem with CM name it instead hiding behind a endless license discussion. I don't have a problem with CM. I just don't believe for one second that Steve is going to be a proponent of a license change that hurts CM. And I wouldn't expect him to be. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ? Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can? A ruling where CC-BY-SA data is being thrown back in to the normal copyright law because the license is void. (Termination clause CC) OSMF vs OSM Contributors sounds totally cool here. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksexa0ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1i5QCdERsafj036Np/UHow7LOM5nJ0 bqUAmgIASemw97qF8jvAge1xMt3fdZyu =x0KW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
