Re: [OSM-talk] Slightly OT: Learning GIS?
I have discovered on-line, but not yet read, what appears to be a very comprehensive textbook: http://www.spatialanalysisonline.com/ I'm just a hobbyist and my GIS use includes little or none of the true analysis and synthesis that GIS can perform; I'm basically using it as a powerful map creation toolset. But as I search the web for data to use and explore, and read the support forums for the software package(s) I use, I'm exposed to the tips of the many icebergs that comprise the spectrum of GIS use. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 08:02:41PM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > I'm sorry for spamming this list with something that's a bit off > topic, but my involvement with OSM has me interested in GIS generally, > and learning the algorithms that I can use to do analysis of the data- > everything from simple functions like calculating the bounding box for > an area and a radius, to knowing if (and where) two polygons > intersect, to more complex questions I don't know enough to ask about > yet. > > So where does someone like me begin? Is there a good book I can read? > A video course online? > > I realize that many universities offer a GIS class, but I'm wondering > if this is something that can be relatively self-taught? > > Thanks, > > - Serge > > ___ > 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] Slightly OT: Learning GIS?
2009/12/14 andrzej zaborowski : > also something to do with 'geometry'. There are obviously interesting > things in GIS that are not related to graphics like the datums and > projections and geometry on a sphere and I don't know where one learns > these, I know little about them. Surveying and/or architecture? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slightly OT: Learning GIS?
2009/12/14 Serge Wroclawski : > I'm sorry for spamming this list with something that's a bit off > topic, but my involvement with OSM has me interested in GIS generally, > and learning the algorithms that I can use to do analysis of the data- > everything from simple functions like calculating the bounding box for > an area and a radius, to knowing if (and where) two polygons > intersect, to more complex questions I don't know enough to ask about > yet. This may sound strange but at most universities these topics are covered in courses with the word 'Graphics' in the title, sometimes also something to do with 'geometry'. There are obviously interesting things in GIS that are not related to graphics like the datums and projections and geometry on a sphere and I don't know where one learns these, I know little about them. For practical aplications however you'll use libraries (gdal etc) or PostGIS for all this stuff so understanding them deeply is rarely required. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] indic fonts in mapnik, JOSM and Potlatch
ヴィカス ヤダヴァ (vikas yadav) schrieb: > > Like this? http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/browse-hi.html >> >> >>Maybe you already knew it.. >> >> a great link! lovely! >> I used to keep filling name:hi via wikipedia, now I saw a hindi exclusive >> map. >> > > It's on of the pre-versions of the localized maps for Wikipedia. There is > one for every language that has a wikipedia: > it works on name: key=pair only or something extra for wikipedia linkages? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Anthony : > I certainly don't remember saying that, and it doesn't sound like something > I'd say. As I have said before, to protect my geodata, I use backups. I was extrapolating based on what you stated earlier, backups are a protection of sorts, but the discussion is about legal protections. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slightly OT: Learning GIS?
2009/12/14 Serge Wroclawski : > Practical, but knowing a little theory helps know how to apply the practical. Theory only helps to point, practical is different because you are dealing with software implementations of GIS, someone was making a mapnik virtual image that might be as good a place to start as any. > Can you suggest any material? Not really, most of the OSM tools are documented to a point, it would be really nice if there was more documentation but can't always have everything we want. I'd suggest, or at least this is how I learn, figure out a goal and then try to achieve it, if I get stuck I ask questions, the dev list would be more appropriate for this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slightly OT: Learning GIS?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/14 Serge Wroclawski : >> So where does someone like me begin? Is there a good book I can read? >> A video course online? > > Are you more interested in theory aspects or practical aspects? Practical, but knowing a little theory helps know how to apply the practical. >> I realize that many universities offer a GIS class, but I'm wondering >> if this is something that can be relatively self-taught? > > Almost anything can be self taught if you are determined enough to > learn it, doubly so since the internet came about. Can you suggest any material? - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:14 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/14 Anthony : > > No, I mean it isn't needed. > > If everyone believed it wasn't needed we wouldn't be having this > discussion... > Quite true! > I believe you added something to my comments. > > What did I add? You said cc-by-sa can't protect geodata (in your > jurisdiction), so it can't prevent it from being rebundled/relicensed, > correct? > I certainly don't remember saying that, and it doesn't sound like something I'd say. As I have said before, to protect my geodata, I use backups. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slightly OT: Learning GIS?
2009/12/14 Serge Wroclawski : > So where does someone like me begin? Is there a good book I can read? > A video course online? Are you more interested in theory aspects or practical aspects? > I realize that many universities offer a GIS class, but I'm wondering > if this is something that can be relatively self-taught? Almost anything can be self taught if you are determined enough to learn it, doubly so since the internet came about. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Anthony : > No, I mean it isn't needed. If everyone believed it wasn't needed we wouldn't be having this discussion... > I believe you added something to my comments. What did I add? You said cc-by-sa can't protect geodata (in your jurisdiction), so it can't prevent it from being rebundled/relicensed, correct? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:20 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/14 Anthony : > > For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. > > You mean cc-by-sa doesn't apply, which is the whole point, some want > SA to apply regardless if cc-by-sa is able to take effect or not. > No, I mean it isn't needed. > > Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer > > copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and > > incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. > > Since you keep claiming cc-by-sa can't protect geodata then it can't > prevent your data from being re-licensed as ODBL, or did I miss > something in your comments? > I believe you added something to my comments. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Slightly OT: Learning GIS?
I'm sorry for spamming this list with something that's a bit off topic, but my involvement with OSM has me interested in GIS generally, and learning the algorithms that I can use to do analysis of the data- everything from simple functions like calculating the bounding box for an area and a radius, to knowing if (and where) two polygons intersect, to more complex questions I don't know enough to ask about yet. So where does someone like me begin? Is there a good book I can read? A video course online? I realize that many universities offer a GIS class, but I'm wondering if this is something that can be relatively self-taught? Thanks, - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Anthony : > If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no "license" is going to > magically make it not PD. Not all legal systems are derived from the British/Common Law legal system, there are others that instead of having all rights by default you only have rights if granted them. > For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. You mean cc-by-sa doesn't apply, which is the whole point, some want SA to apply regardless if cc-by-sa is able to take effect or not. > Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just > copyright law. As explained in the GPL: "The licenses for most software > and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share > and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is > intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a > program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." The ODbL > falls into the former category of "licenses". I realise the ODBL doesn't just use copyright law, I thought that was kinda the point, copyright law may not be useful everywhere so other mechanisms had to be thought up. > The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA. But > CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL. So stop saying the > ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. Claim it's in the same spirit as > the GPL, and then we can have that discussion. As I stated, I never said I agreed with ODBL, I agreed with the intent behind it. Also out of curiosity why are you so adamantly against people being required to give back to the community if you are already supporting this community? IN fact having such requirements means you will benefit from improvements others contribute. > I agree with the GPL. There's little chance I'm going to release my > software under the BSD license. But software isn't geodata. Again, it's the intent, not the specific license that I agree with at present, I won't be able to have this all sorted out till into the new year at the earliest because it's kind of too close to christmas and people are going on holidays etc. > Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer > copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and > incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. Since you keep claiming cc-by-sa can't protect geodata then it can't prevent your data from being re-licensed as ODBL, or did I miss something in your comments? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] indic fonts in mapnik, JOSM and Potlatch
ヴィカス ヤダヴァ (vikas yadav) schrieb: > Like this? http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/browse-hi.html > > > Maybe you already knew it.. > > a great link! lovely! > I used to keep filling name:hi via wikipedia, now I saw a hindi > exclusive map. It's on of the pre-versions of the localized maps for Wikipedia. There is one for every language that has a wikipedia: http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/ Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Anthony wrote: > Just like if I use the OSM database to determine a route, or to determine > which streets are missing from my own map, or to determine the locations of > all the fire stations in Tampa. > Or if I took a rendered Mapnik map and then traced the streets. Any creativity within the original work would likely be gone. Or, for the areas I'm interested in (mostly in the United States) I'd just go back to the PD TIGER data and then trace only the parts that have been significantly modified. Overpass information is likely not copyrightable. So that part could be imported automatically. To be sure, if I wanted to free OSM from copyright, I'd make my own designations of roads as primary/secondary/tertiary/etc (and probably use different designations all together). I'd choose the categories of POIs to extract, and leave out the others. (I don't think individual POI latitude/longitude pairs are copyrightable, but the selection of which POIs to include and which POIs not to include might be.) Personally, I wouldn't bother with all this, because CC-BY-SA is fine for me. If OSM goes to ODbL I probably will use some of these techniques when extracting modifications made after the fork with my area of interest, though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, OJ W wrote: > The location, size, shape of each building is a fact. No inaccuracy > was intended. So does this image have copyright protection? > http://www.limitemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/steph02.jpg > I don't think you can say "no inaccuracy was intended". However, I'm now convinced that there probably is at least some copyright protection in the OSM database, even here in Florida (and any other state which is part of the US). I'd say it's a very "thin copyright", though. If I used that drawing to make a list of buildings ordered by height, I highly doubt the image would be a derivative work of the original. Just like if I use the OSM database to determine a route, or to determine which streets are missing from my own map, or to determine the locations of all the fire stations in Tampa. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
The location, size, shape of each building is a fact. No inaccuracy was intended. So does this image have copyright protection? http://www.limitemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/steph02.jpg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:08 AM, OJ W wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Anthony wrote: > > We could, however, introduce a "arc" tag... To represent an arc, you > only need > > three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines > a > > triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). > > > > Of course, I can't copyright this idea... > > Not least because only one person is allowed to have each idea, and > somebody has already had this idea... > > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0919788.html > Wow. Are you saying doing this would (possibly?) violate that patent? If so, does that mean we can't do it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Anthony wrote: > We could, however, introduce a "arc" tag... To represent an arc, you only > need > three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a > triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). > > Of course, I can't copyright this idea... Not least because only one person is allowed to have each idea, and somebody has already had this idea... http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0919788.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/13 Anthony : > > If geodata is not copyrightable, then Share Alike is meaningless. The > > original work is public domain, and the modified work is also public > domain. > > Assuming public domains is a valid option, which isn't valid in all > jurisdictions. If the data is not copyrightable, then it is by definition public domain. > Even where PD is valid if you modify it and choose a > license which can be upheld it is no longer PD any more. > If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no "license" is going to magically make it not PD. > The point is, whichever way it's decided, it'll be the same for the > modified > > data as it is for the original data. If the OSM database is not > > copyrightable, neither will the modified database be. If the OSM > database > > is copyrightable, then the modified database must be. > > Just because certain copyrights don't exists in some jursidictions > doesn't mean they aren't valid in others. Which is the whole reason > for ODBL, because geodata may not be considered copyrightable in some > areas a new method of enforcing the same thing CC-BY-SA is needed. > For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. > If you'd prefer that, fine. But please be honest about this - the ODbL is > > more than just a more enforceable version of the spirit of CC-BY-SA. The > > How is this different than the requirements of the GPL where you need > to make changes available if you distribute binaries? > Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just copyright law. As explained in the GPL: "The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." The ODbL falls into the former category of "licenses". The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA. But CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL. So stop saying the ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. Claim it's in the same spirit as the GPL, and then we can have that discussion. > requirements go beyond requiring derivative works to be licensed under the > > same license. Most significantly, the ODbL requires people to offer > copies > > of any derivative databases that are used in the making of the final > > derivative work. Among other things, that means having to keep copies of > > such databases, something which is not always done (if I want to alter > the > > database, render tiles, and then throw out the altered database, I'm not > > able to do that, because I have to offer people copies of the altered > > database). > > Again, this is no different than requirements of GPL software. > And again, I was comparing ODbL to the intent of CC-BY-SA, not GPL. If you'd like me to compare the ODbL to the GPL, please start a new thread, and I'll be happy to make the full comparison. I hope you first realize, though, that CC-BY-SA is not the GPL. CC-BY-SA does not require you to distribute source code when you distribute binaries. It is not *intended* to require that. And anyone who takes the time to read the simple one page description of CC-BY-SA ought to know that. There is no way everyone is going to be happy as a result of this, > that's human nature, people are influenced and motivated by various > things, a lot of people agree with the GPL, at lot of people don't > which is why you end up with others using BSD and other similar > licenses. > I agree with the GPL. There's little chance I'm going to release my software under the BSD license. But software isn't geodata. > If you want to push your data as PD that's fine, tag the change set as > PD when you upload and problem solved then such data can be extracted > regardless what other data is licensed as then everyone is happy, of > course this only counts in countries that have a notion of PD > otherwise people in those countries wouldn't be able to use such data > either. Ain't it grand having lawyers make laws? :) > Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] indic fonts in mapnik, JOSM and Potlatch
Like this? http://cassini.toolserver.org/tile-browse/browse-hi.html > > Maybe you already knew it.. > > a great link! lovely! I used to keep filling name:hi via wikipedia, now I saw a hindi exclusive map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When will the next mapnik coastline update be?
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 23:33 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Jon Burgess > wrote: > > I ran the coastcheck utility last night to update the coastline > > shapefiles on the main Mapnik layer. > > Sweet, thanks. > > > The updates will not automatically appear on the map unless the tiles is > > re-rendered due to updates of other data. We have no mechanism to > > recognise which tiles need to be rendered when the coastline is updated. > > This is part of the reason why the updates are normally coincident with > > the bulk reload where we mark all the old tiles as invalid. > > What's the best way to force an individual tile to re-render? Edit > something in the area and save? If you grab the URL of a tile (right click, copy image location) and apped /dirty on to the end then it will add the tile into the rendering queue. e.g. http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/16/59149/40219.png/dirty if you append /status to the URL then you will see when it was last rendered. The tiles get rendered in a 8x8 grid, if any one get marked dirty then they will all rendered. The /dirty only applies to that one zoom level. If you want to effect other zooms then they need to be done separately. The other way you can check the current data is to use the export tab. The images are not cached and always render with the current shapefiles. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When will the next mapnik coastline update be?
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 22:14 +1000, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/13 Jon Burgess : > > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:10 +1000, John Smith wrote: > >> It's slightly annoying now that things render so quickly that the > >> coastlines don't. > > > > I ran the coastcheck utility last night to update the coastline > > shapefiles on the main Mapnik layer. > > > > The updates will not automatically appear on the map unless the tiles is > > re-rendered due to updates of other data. We have no mechanism to > > recognise which tiles need to be rendered when the coastline is updated. > > This is part of the reason why the updates are normally coincident with > > the bulk reload where we mark all the old tiles as invalid. > > Are the tiles still automatically refreshed on the first request after > 7 days? If so updating at least weekly would still be useful. I think the 7 day figure was only used to set the http expiry headers on the returned tiles. It did not actually force anything to re-render. It was based on the assumption there would be a fresh full import every 7 days which no longer happens now we have the minutely updates. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When will the next mapnik coastline update be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Jon Burgess wrote: > I ran the coastcheck utility last night to update the coastline > shapefiles on the main Mapnik layer. Sweet, thanks. > The updates will not automatically appear on the map unless the tiles is > re-rendered due to updates of other data. We have no mechanism to > recognise which tiles need to be rendered when the coastline is updated. > This is part of the reason why the updates are normally coincident with > the bulk reload where we mark all the old tiles as invalid. What's the best way to force an individual tile to re-render? Edit something in the area and save? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When will the next mapnik coastline update be?
2009/12/13 Jon Burgess : > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:10 +1000, John Smith wrote: >> It's slightly annoying now that things render so quickly that the >> coastlines don't. > > I ran the coastcheck utility last night to update the coastline > shapefiles on the main Mapnik layer. > > The updates will not automatically appear on the map unless the tiles is > re-rendered due to updates of other data. We have no mechanism to > recognise which tiles need to be rendered when the coastline is updated. > This is part of the reason why the updates are normally coincident with > the bulk reload where we mark all the old tiles as invalid. Are the tiles still automatically refreshed on the first request after 7 days? If so updating at least weekly would still be useful. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When will the next mapnik coastline update be?
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:10 +1000, John Smith wrote: > It's slightly annoying now that things render so quickly that the > coastlines don't. I ran the coastcheck utility last night to update the coastline shapefiles on the main Mapnik layer. The updates will not automatically appear on the map unless the tiles is re-rendered due to updates of other data. We have no mechanism to recognise which tiles need to be rendered when the coastline is updated. This is part of the reason why the updates are normally coincident with the bulk reload where we mark all the old tiles as invalid. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/13 Brendan Morley : > So John, given you wish to "don't want commercial companies just sucking up > all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend > the map" - I never said at any point I agree with ODBL, I said I agreed with the intent. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Oh, and I realised one of the main reasons the Australian Government lawyers are happy about CC* licences is that they prefer CCBY only, therefore avoiding the whole Sharealike-enforcement question. --Original Message Text--- From: Brendan Morley Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:31:59 +1000 Well I RTFM (i.e. the CCBYSA and OdbL licences) and this is what I got: CCBYSA only compels you to share the derived work, not the steps you followed to create the derived work. i.e. CCBYSA never asked people to share "the steps they followed". So John, given you wish to "don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map" - - CCBYSA (in "mature" copyright jurisdictions like Australia) will compel them to share the published work, also under CCBY(SA), therefore there is some data interpretation and re-entry involved to get it back to the OSM schema. This is probably little different to "tracing" off a paper map or image. - OdbL intends to compel them to share "the steps they followed" e.g. the modified database before rendering. Mind you, there was nothing I saw in the OdbL that compelled the modifying body to share back in the same database *schema*, so we could still have a big data re-entry problem - the only difference being that there is a hope of a scriptable solution. The interesting bit (that I couldn't satisfy myself by a first read of the licences) is enforcement. Given the fear of a 10^100 "just sucking up all the data" ... OdbL intends to exploit copyright, database and contract rights. Since it seems the US is a "weak" copyright jurisdiction when it comes to factual data. It would seem OdbL will not compel 10^100 by copyright law. Database law only applies to European Union, right? So that mechanism is out too. So then we appear to rely on US contract law, such that it may exist in a form that supports OdbL. Well that's my amateur analysis. Has anyone actually done a "desk check" to see if OdbL can compel 10^100 or other US-domiciled corporates to follow the spirit of the licence? The OdbL FAQ also seems to allow you to choose the jurisdiction that enforcement is carried out under. So as an Australian citizen perhaps you can persue 10^100 in the Australian copyright law context. This doesn't help our US bretheren however, so I'd hope if they wanted to enforce "SA" on their edits, that the OdbL plays well with US contract law. Hope this helps, Brendan On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:12:34 +1000, John Smith wrote: >2009/12/13 Anthony : >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith >> wrote: >>> >>> That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the >>> community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all >>> the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend >>> the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our >>> time for "the greater good". >> >> It's perfectly fair. You agreed to license your contributions under >> CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA doesn't require that you give anything back to anyone. >> It only requires that you give credit to the authors and license any >> derivative works that you distribute under CC-BY-SA. >> >That isn't the debate, the debate is if CC-BY-SA can enforce it or >not, some people claim it can't in some countries even Australia to >some extent or other, so ODBL is being presented as an option to close >loopholes that CC-BY-SA has. >___ >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] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Well I RTFM (i.e. the CCBYSA and OdbL licences) and this is what I got: CCBYSA only compels you to share the derived work, not the steps you followed to create the derived work. i.e. CCBYSA never asked people to share "the steps they followed". So John, given you wish to "don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map" - - CCBYSA (in "mature" copyright jurisdictions like Australia) will compel them to share the published work, also under CCBY(SA), therefore there is some data interpretation and re-entry involved to get it back to the OSM schema. This is probably little different to "tracing" off a paper map or image. - OdbL intends to compel them to share "the steps they followed" e.g. the modified database before rendering. Mind you, there was nothing I saw in the OdbL that compelled the modifying body to share back in the same database *schema*, so we could still have a big data re-entry problem - the only difference being that there is a hope of a scriptable solution. The interesting bit (that I couldn't satisfy myself by a first read of the licences) is enforcement. Given the fear of a 10^100 "just sucking up all the data" ... OdbL intends to exploit copyright, database and contract rights. Since it seems the US is a "weak" copyright jurisdiction when it comes to factual data. It would seem OdbL will not compel 10^100 by copyright law. Database law only applies to European Union, right? So that mechanism is out too. So then we appear to rely on US contract law, such that it may exist in a form that supports OdbL. Well that's my amateur analysis. Has anyone actually done a "desk check" to see if OdbL can compel 10^100 or other US-domiciled corporates to follow the spirit of the licence? The OdbL FAQ also seems to allow you to choose the jurisdiction that enforcement is carried out under. So as an Australian citizen perhaps you can persue 10^100 in the Australian copyright law context. This doesn't help our US bretheren however, so I'd hope if they wanted to enforce "SA" on their edits, that the OdbL plays well with US contract law. Hope this helps, Brendan On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:12:34 +1000, John Smith wrote: >2009/12/13 Anthony : >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith >> wrote: >>> >>> That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the >>> community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all >>> the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend >>> the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our >>> time for "the greater good". >> >> It's perfectly fair. You agreed to license your contributions under >> CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA doesn't require that you give anything back to anyone. >> It only requires that you give credit to the authors and license any >> derivative works that you distribute under CC-BY-SA. >> >That isn't the debate, the debate is if CC-BY-SA can enforce it or >not, some people claim it can't in some countries even Australia to >some extent or other, so ODBL is being presented as an option to close >loopholes that CC-BY-SA has. >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
