Re: [OSM-talk] Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation : A solution proposal
On 24 August 2010 15:58, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > This would require the OSM database to include a extra field for each and > every item indicating the license You could just add the license information as part of the changeset tags, that way there is no changes to OSMs DB needed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation : A solution proposal
Well. Then I come along, add an amenity=cafe, under a CCBYSA2.0-license. But at the wrong spot. And you, having chosen an OdBL-license, decides to move it to the correct position. Under what license is that node? This isn't going to be easy, hardly possible? :) - Vegard On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 07:58:22AM +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > A fork as stipulated is not necessarily about a group of people leaving OSM , > but about > > we (OSM) deciding to continue in two or more future directions > > covered by different licenses, and maybe finally decide which license fits > best. > > > > This would require the OSM database to include a extra field for each and > every item indicating the license > > the data was provided by its contributor. The license choice can be made in > the users profile. > > > > For most of OSM there is no difference. > > The license is only relevant once data is extracted to external parties. > > > > External parties will therefore always know under what license any node and > any way of the > > database had been granted to them. > > > > The map server and most applications at would remain as they are. > > > > We may however create a second and or more maps showing only the data from > specific licenses > > and enabling OSM-ers to evaluate the consequences of their choices. > > > > I think this is the only way to solve this everlasting and destructive > license discussion. > > > > It requires however, some flexibility of mind, and the trust that OSM will not > > abuse the choice made by its contributors. As the database and the license > field will > > be visible to all of us, I trust that will be not a major problem. > > > > > > Gert Gremmen > > - > > > > Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) > > P Before printing, think about the environment. > > > > > > Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] > Namens 80n > Verzonden: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17 PM > Aan: m...@koppenhoefer.com > CC: talk@openstreetmap.org > Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA > 2.0continuation > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > 2010/8/23 Michael Kugelmann : > > > BTW: @Felix Hartmann > > using words like > >> > >> so fuck off. > > > > shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is alsways a > > sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues with the > > discussion. > > > > to be fair: he didn't write (others) should f**k off, what he meant > was "clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else to fuck off". > Thus I agree that this might not be adequate language, you shouldn't > critisize him for that, probably he wasn't aware because English is > not his primary language. > > On the argument I agree though: make your own mailing lists for your > fork. It's probably OK to announce it here (with an URL where to go, > which was actually missing in your announcement), but further > discussions should then be brought to the place of your fork, not > inside the resources of OSM. > > I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account > data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at > least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to > can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork > site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely > wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM). > > There is absolutely no need for OSM to relinquish any private account data. > No fork will ever need that data and I doubt that any fork would even bother > asking OSM for it. > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation : A solution proposal
Only a question: Node A_1 is created as CC-BY-SA. Node A_2 (same as A_1) is created as ODbL. What a mess whould happen? When I'm editing, I'm editing A_1? Or maybe A_2? Or if: Node A_1 exists under CC-BY-SA. Node A_2 (same as A_1) is created under PD. The CC map will have both nodes. Am I wrong or it would be a giant mess? I like the idea (or, at least, the basic idea) but I think the implementation would create giant messes. On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:58 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > A fork as stipulated is not necessarily about a group of people leaving > OSM , but about > > we (OSM) deciding to continue in two or more future directions > > covered by different licenses, and maybe finally decide which license fits > best. > > > > This would require the OSM database to *include a extra field for each*and > every item indicating the license > > the data was provided by its contributor. The license choice can be made in > the users profile. > > > > For most of OSM there is no difference. > > *The license is only relevant once data is extracted to external parties* > . > > > > External parties will therefore always know under what license any node and > any way of the > > database had been granted to them. > > > > The map server and most applications at would remain as they are. > > > > We may however create a second and or more maps showing only the data from > specific licenses > > and enabling OSM-ers to evaluate the consequences of their choices. > > > > I think this is the only way to solve this everlasting and destructive > license discussion. > > > > It requires however, some flexibility of mind, and the trust that OSM will > not > > abuse the choice made by its contributors. As the database and the license > field will > > be visible to all of us, I trust that will be not a major problem. > > > > > > Gert Gremmen > > - > > [image: Osm] > > Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) > > P* Before printing, think about the environment.* > > > > > > *Van:* talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto: > talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *Namens *80n > *Verzonden:* Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17 PM > *Aan:* m...@koppenhoefer.com > *CC:* talk@openstreetmap.org > *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA > 2.0continuation > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2010/8/23 Michael Kugelmann : > > > BTW: @Felix Hartmann > > using words like > >> > >> so fuck off. > > > > shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is alsways > a > > sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues with the > > discussion. > > to be fair: he didn't write (others) should f**k off, what he meant > was "clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else to fuck off". > Thus I agree that this might not be adequate language, you shouldn't > critisize him for that, probably he wasn't aware because English is > not his primary language. > > On the argument I agree though: make your own mailing lists for your > fork. It's probably OK to announce it here (with an URL where to go, > which was actually missing in your announcement), but further > discussions should then be brought to the place of your fork, not > inside the resources of OSM. > > I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account > data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at > least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to > can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork > site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely > wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM). > > There is absolutely no need for OSM to relinquish any private account > data. No fork will ever need that data and I doubt that any fork would even > bother asking OSM for it. > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Fabio Alessandro Locati Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) Phone: +39-328-3799681 MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia <>___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation : A solution proposal
A fork as stipulated is not necessarily about a group of people leaving OSM , but about we (OSM) deciding to continue in two or more future directions covered by different licenses, and maybe finally decide which license fits best. This would require the OSM database to include a extra field for each and every item indicating the license the data was provided by its contributor. The license choice can be made in the users profile. For most of OSM there is no difference. The license is only relevant once data is extracted to external parties. External parties will therefore always know under what license any node and any way of the database had been granted to them. The map server and most applications at would remain as they are. We may however create a second and or more maps showing only the data from specific licenses and enabling OSM-ers to evaluate the consequences of their choices. I think this is the only way to solve this everlasting and destructive license discussion. It requires however, some flexibility of mind, and the trust that OSM will not abuse the choice made by its contributors. As the database and the license field will be visible to all of us, I trust that will be not a major problem. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) P Before printing, think about the environment. Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens 80n Verzonden: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17 PM Aan: m...@koppenhoefer.com CC: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/23 Michael Kugelmann : > BTW: @Felix Hartmann > using words like >> >> so fuck off. > > shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is alsways a > sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues with the > discussion. to be fair: he didn't write (others) should f**k off, what he meant was "clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else to fuck off". Thus I agree that this might not be adequate language, you shouldn't critisize him for that, probably he wasn't aware because English is not his primary language. On the argument I agree though: make your own mailing lists for your fork. It's probably OK to announce it here (with an URL where to go, which was actually missing in your announcement), but further discussions should then be brought to the place of your fork, not inside the resources of OSM. I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM). There is absolutely no need for OSM to relinquish any private account data. No fork will ever need that data and I doubt that any fork would even bother asking OSM for it. <>___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue
Yes (UK). After talking to a couple of people I have sent it back to Amazon today. Promisingly, the system has already issued a new item request and I have an email saying it has been despatched. So hopefully all will be resolved. STEVE From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F. [dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:03 PM Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue On 22/08/2010 21:42, Steve Chilton wrote: > My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief. > The power on/off button has decided to not function at all. > Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from > Amazon). Can't help with the button, but I would just contact Amazon as it's still under guarantee. Under the sales of goods act your contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer when dealing with faulty goods. You are UK based aren't you? Dave F. ___ 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] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue
On 22/08/2010 21:42, Steve Chilton wrote: My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief. The power on/off button has decided to not function at all. Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from Amazon). Can't help with the button, but I would just contact Amazon as it's still under guarantee. Under the sales of goods act your contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer when dealing with faulty goods. You are UK based aren't you? Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iPad app
Jeffrey, we are not yet at the beta testing stage, but will send an email to this list when we are ready to accept beta testers. Hope to hear from you then. -- Zsombor On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 19:39, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > Any chance I can beta test? I can send my UDID if you like. > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:35 AM, SteveC wrote: > > awesome :-) > > > > Am Aug 23, 2010 um 12:36 AM schrieb Zsombor Szabó: > > > >> Steve, > >> > >> OpenMaps for iOS has already some great tag editing and node creating > features, but, as hinted in some of our support responses to our users, we > are working on a full-featured OSM editor. I can't tell a deadline yet when > it will be available, but soon. The best part: it will be free. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Zsombor Szabo > >> IZE, Ltd. > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 21:30, SteveC wrote: > >> I keep thinking an editing app for the 3G / wifi iPad would be awesome. > It's always on the network, GPS and compass are built in. > >> > >> It would be a sweet surveying device, but would have to be super fault > tolerant in doing things like waiting for the network. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> stevecoast.com > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> talk mailing list > >> talk@openstreetmap.org > >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >> > > > > Steve > > > > stevecoast.com > > > > > > ___ > > 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] iPad app
Nick,
at the moment we have a rough total of 450 monthly active editors ("OpenMaps
iPhone"+"OpenMaps iOS"):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editor_usage_stats
Our internal analytics report between July 23 and August 22 2010 (users can
opt-out from this):
- 11,086 impressions (iphone user looked at a node/way)
- 183 osm user logins
- 307 nodes created
- 87 node/way saves
Best regards,
Zsombor Szabo
IZE, Ltd.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 19:13, Nick Black wrote:
> How many of your users adopted the editing functionality?
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Zsombor Szabó wrote:
> > Steve,
> > OpenMaps for iOS has already some great tag editing and node creating
> > features, but, as hinted in some of our support responses to our users,
> we
> > are working on a full-featured OSM editor. I can't tell a deadline yet
> when
> > it will be available, but soon. The best part: it will be free.
> > Best regards,
> > Zsombor Szabo
> > IZE, Ltd.
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 21:30, SteveC wrote:
> >>
> >> I keep thinking an editing app for the 3G / wifi iPad would be awesome.
> >> It's always on the network, GPS and compass are built in.
> >>
> >> It would be a sweet surveying device, but would have to be super fault
> >> tolerant in doing things like waiting for the network.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >> stevecoast.com
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Nick Black
> twitter.com/nick_b
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iPad app
awesome :-) Am Aug 23, 2010 um 12:36 AM schrieb Zsombor Szabó: > Steve, > > OpenMaps for iOS has already some great tag editing and node creating > features, but, as hinted in some of our support responses to our users, we > are working on a full-featured OSM editor. I can't tell a deadline yet when > it will be available, but soon. The best part: it will be free. > > Best regards, > Zsombor Szabo > IZE, Ltd. > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 21:30, SteveC wrote: > I keep thinking an editing app for the 3G / wifi iPad would be awesome. It's > always on the network, GPS and compass are built in. > > It would be a sweet surveying device, but would have to be super fault > tolerant in doing things like waiting for the network. > > Steve > > stevecoast.com > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iPad app
How many of your users adopted the editing functionality? On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Zsombor Szabó wrote: > Steve, > OpenMaps for iOS has already some great tag editing and node creating > features, but, as hinted in some of our support responses to our users, we > are working on a full-featured OSM editor. I can't tell a deadline yet when > it will be available, but soon. The best part: it will be free. > Best regards, > Zsombor Szabo > IZE, Ltd. > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 21:30, SteveC wrote: >> >> I keep thinking an editing app for the 3G / wifi iPad would be awesome. >> It's always on the network, GPS and compass are built in. >> >> It would be a sweet surveying device, but would have to be super fault >> tolerant in doing things like waiting for the network. >> >> Steve >> >> stevecoast.com >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/8/23 Michael Kugelmann : > > BTW: @Felix Hartmann > > using words like > >> > >> so fuck off. > > > > shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is alsways > a > > sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues with the > > discussion. > > > to be fair: he didn't write (others) should f**k off, what he meant > was "clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else to fuck off". > Thus I agree that this might not be adequate language, you shouldn't > critisize him for that, probably he wasn't aware because English is > not his primary language. > > On the argument I agree though: make your own mailing lists for your > fork. It's probably OK to announce it here (with an URL where to go, > which was actually missing in your announcement), but further > discussions should then be brought to the place of your fork, not > inside the resources of OSM. > > I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account > data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at > least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to > can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork > site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely > wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM). > > There is absolutely no need for OSM to relinquish any private account data. No fork will ever need that data and I doubt that any fork would even bother asking OSM for it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 23 August 2010 16:21, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account > data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at > least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to > can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork > site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely > wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM). It's absurd and not really necessary to hand over the accounts data, OAuth solves this problem. But it makes a lot of sense to use the same credentials as on the OSM site because AFAIU Felix wants to give mappers a way to just continue mapping under the same conditions as they have been doing until now, without going through additional hassle. It's understandable they want to continue using the same accounts. As 80n already pointed out it's the job of those who want a change to fork instead of forcing the change on everyone, and forcing those who oppose to relaunch the project. Although it's discutible because the informal poll showed the support for the change was strong, I do think the osmf should have at least considered that path. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
2010/8/23 Michael Kugelmann : > BTW: @Felix Hartmann > using words like >> >> so fuck off. > > shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is alsways a > sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues with the > discussion. to be fair: he didn't write (others) should f**k off, what he meant was "clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else to fuck off". Thus I agree that this might not be adequate language, you shouldn't critisize him for that, probably he wasn't aware because English is not his primary language. On the argument I agree though: make your own mailing lists for your fork. It's probably OK to announce it here (with an URL where to go, which was actually missing in your announcement), but further discussions should then be brought to the place of your fork, not inside the resources of OSM. I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [HOT] Pre-disaster imagery of Pakistan Floods now available from SPOT
Hi Sam and all I am seeing unexplained offsets in the SPOT WMS http://skitch.com/sabman/dugbm/java-openstreetmap-editor I am using the following url in josm http://www.geodatawork.net/__streaminguid.e30dcaa3-5929-4902-9834-12e6f51e1e7b/wms.ashx?request=GetMap&format=jpeg&layers=1896281c-d4a4-4de7-955c-47044ae2d272&srs=EPSG:4326&; Without the EPSG it doesn't work for me - anyone else tried it? Shoaib Burq -- Canberra, Australia http://nomad-labs.com skype: spatialgoat On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Sam Larsen wrote: > > >> >> This would prohibit caching/proxying the WMS in tiles using something like >>TileCache or Whoots, meaning (unless I am mistaken) that Potlatch would be >>unable to use the imagery under the given terms. > > > That's unfortunate, i'm running a Cambridge crisis camp lesson on OSM editing > for Pakistan on Tuesday and was going to get the new editors to start with > Potlatch using Yahoo imagery. I guess we might have to take a leap of faith > and > get them to go straight into JOSM. > > It would help though if the team can try to complete the SPOT imagery boundary > that Harry has started, so that if there are some severely affected areas that > are not covered by SPOT we can get them into some Yahoo tracing in those areas > using Potlatch. > > I've added it as a task: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2010_07_Pakistan_Floods/Mapping_Coordination/Mapping_Tasks#Mapping_Tasks > > > > >> >> > Hopefully this imagery proves useful in the base map. Please distribute >> > this >>information to any interested mappers. >> >> I just went to >>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2010_07_Pakistan_Floods/Imagery_and_data_sources >> and didn't see this there, and by the time I logged in to add it, you'd >> already >>edited the page. :-) Great work on this, Mikel and thanks to both you and Jeff >>for making this happen. >> >> Don't forget to tag derived features with the attribution, gang! >> >> SDE >> ___ >> HOT mailing list >> h...@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >> > > > > > ___ > HOT mailing list > h...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On 23 August 2010 01:34, Richard Weait wrote:
>
> That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
> conversation with one lawyer ("casual" as in I wasn't paying the
> lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not
> required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the
> OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. Perhaps any lawyers on this
> list would comment on this matter in general?
Well, the at common law (and therefore probably in every current
common law jurisdiction I know of and probably even the US) the
interpretation of contracts is a mixed question of fact and law (if
there were a jury, the judge would tell them the rules of
interpretation, the jury would apply them). In practice this means
that aside from questions such as what background material is
available for the interpretation exercise (eg the draft version),
deciding what a contract means is not really a legal question, its a
factual one. It would thus depend on who wrote it, what it was for and
so on.
This is lengthy way of saying that a lawyer may not be in a much
better position than you in determining what a contract means, and
also that there are no necessarily any "special" or "magic" words that
mean particular things in a contract.
The test in English law (again probably a common law generality) is to
look at what an objective observer reading the contract at the time it
was made would assume that the parties meant by it.
Thus English law does not work like FORTRAN it is rather more
forgiving (though those with long memories will recall that FORTRAN
did used to try to assist by inferring information - when I worked as
a duty programming advisor I would require that programmers wrote
IMPLICIT NONE at the start of their programs to introduce some kind of
sanity).
So CT 1.0 is certainly a head scratcher. I can easily see a judge
puzzling over what was intended by the internal contradiction between
sentence 1 (which requires that a contributor be a "copyright holders"
whatever they are) and the last sentence which only applies to someone
who is not a "copyright holder".
I think (and this is not a formal legal opinion - sorry) that a court
is most likely to decide that what is intended is to permit non
copyright holders to contribute provided they have permission of the
"copyright holder" to do so.
Quite how the second sentence of 1.0 factors in is unclear - if the
job its trying to do is to filter out "copyright holders" who are for
some reason (perhaps because of a binding contract or some rule of
law) unable to give the permission without violation of "some law"
then the last sentence doesn't do that job - it requires that the
contributor have permission of a "copyright holder" but doesn't seem
to require that that holder be able to grant that permission lawfully.
To Anthony's question I'd say the answer was "probably, yes" despite
those objections.
So it is very oddly drafted and its not immediately clear what it is
trying to do precisely, which makes interpretation difficult for a
court.
Now on the specific question: may a non-copyright holder contribute
under the terms? As I have said a court is likely to conclude that
they may. This is fortified by various rules of law, in particular
"contra proferentem" - as the authors and profferors of the contract,
OSMF are assumed to know what they are doing and any ambiguity would
be resolved against them and in favour of a contributor. This is what
(I think) is meant by another poster to this thread talking about a
"contract of adhesion" - though in English law that sort of doctrine
relates particularly to unfair terms and consumers rather than as a
generality.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:21, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chris Browet wrote: > > But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't > they? > > No. Not all opinions are helpful. And certainly, sheer volume of > opinions is unhelpful. > Pfff... Ok, welcome to Tropico island... > > > > If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? > > Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and > > moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating "Talk", whose topic is > > not obvious? > > > > Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving > a > > place of "free speech", and topic-focused lists would be sane... > > If anything, I would do the opposite: tightly moderate Talk as a > community forum where issues of all nature can be discussed, if done > You realize "tightly moderate" and "issues of all nature" are somewhat contradictory, do you? > so constructively and succinctly. Individual specialist lists could be > left unmoderated. Since the numbers of subscribers are lower, they can > form and enforce their own standards more easily. > > Btw, once more, this notion of "those who don't want the spam don't > have to read it" is just plain wrong. The spam overwhelms the valuable > discussion, meaning everyone suffers. It's not a question of "if you > don't like the rain, don't stand in it". > > Whatever, I give up... It's not like the community still has a say, anyway... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
