Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
rf == Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net writes: rf Sorry, you've puzzled me a bit here. rf You state that it's better to cite how much data would be deleted. rf However, that directly contradicts your previous paragraph, in which you rf quote, um, the number of users, not the amount of data. rf rf Reading odbl.de, although 60% of users in Europe have accepted the new rf contributor terms, that actually equates to between 80% and 92% of nodes, rf and between 70% and 93% of ways. In North America, your 40% of users is rf 54%-94% of nodes, and 66-85% of ways.[1] Hello Richard, It's quite simple: I object to the OSMF using what I consider to be very misleading statistics in communication on the ODBL process. Michael Collinson's message can be interpreted as saying that 0.2% of users haven't accepted the new contributor terms. I point out that a more reasonable way of presenting the data is that between 40 and 55% (depending on the region) of users haven't accepted the new contributor terms. I then argue that the most important statistic in deciding whether to go ahead with the big delete is how much data would be removed. odbl.de indicates (for Europe) 80% of nodes, 70% of ways, 50% of relations -- much lower for other areas such as Australia or the USA --- are at version 1 with a user having accepted the CT. As you point out, this is a lower bound on the amount of data that would be retained, since objects with a version 1 and only CT-accepting users would also be retained. There used to be a map at http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ highlighting how much data would be retained, but it seems to have disappeared. On a related note concerning the process, I find it unreasonable for OSMF to ask people to accept the new CT without having first decided on a tolerability threshold on loss of data. -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 16/06/11 08:17, Eric Marsden wrote: It's quite simple: I object to the OSMF using what I consider to be very misleading statistics in communication on the ODBL process. Michael Collinson's message can be interpreted as saying that 0.2% of users haven't accepted the new contributor terms. I point out that a more reasonable way of presenting the data is that between 40 and 55% (depending on the region) of users haven't accepted the new contributor terms. So you decided to counter with your own misleading statistics by talking about 200K people not having agreed? Whilst technically more or less accurate (the real number is 216170 right now) it is misleading because only 40% of those users have ever made any edits to the data. To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some actual numbers, straight from the database: Users with edits who have agreed: 96917 Users without edits who have agreed: 104663 Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764 Users without edits who have not agreed: 129406 Changesets by users who have agreed: 7229801 (85.5%) Changesets by users who have not agreed: (14.5%) Edits by users who have agreed: 181482 (89.2%) Edits by users who have not agreed: 218756288 (10.8%) Hope that helps, Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 11:44 +0100, Andy Street wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. I was expecting at this stage in the game that there would have been a simple answer to this. Seeing as this appears not to be the case I have emailed the LWG[0] and anyone wishing to follow this further can do so on legal-talk. Regards, Andy [0] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006181.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Am 16.06.2011 06:13, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote: Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson: What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the public domain? Setting PD flag without accepting OBL/DBCL/CT isn't possible in the moment (or did I miss a loop hole, where you can set all flags independantly??) I declined the terms but checked the box for PD. I don't know if this is actually reflected in the database, but the form makes it possible. I looked at source code: http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/blob/HEAD:/app/controllers/user_controller.rb section def save and found that checking PD does not go to database. As I asked for a loop hole, I meant such outside this page ... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On jeudi 16 juin 2011 at 10:20, Tom Hughes wrote : To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some actual numbers, straight from the database: Users with edits who have agreed: 96917 Users without edits who have agreed: 104663 Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764 Users without edits who have not agreed: 129406 Changesets by users who have agreed: 7229801 (85.5%) Changesets by users who have not agreed: (14.5%) Edits by users who have agreed: 181482 (89.2%) Edits by users who have not agreed: 218756288 (10.8%) Thanks for the data. When you write users who have not agreed, do you mean only those that have explicitly said no to the CT? Or do you include all the users who have not made a choice yet? -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 16/06/11 17:09, Renaud MICHEL wrote: On jeudi 16 juin 2011 at 10:20, Tom Hughes wrote : To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some actual numbers, straight from the database: Users with edits who have agreed: 96917 Users without edits who have agreed: 104663 Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764 Users without edits who have not agreed: 129406 Changesets by users who have agreed: 7229801 (85.5%) Changesets by users who have not agreed: (14.5%) Edits by users who have agreed: 181482 (89.2%) Edits by users who have not agreed: 218756288 (10.8%) Thanks for the data. When you write users who have not agreed, do you mean only those that have explicitly said no to the CT? Or do you include all the users who have not made a choice yet? The not agreed counts are for all active accounts (ie excluding deleted accounts and accounts which were never confirmed) which have not agreed and includes both explicit declines and people that have not made a decision. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Tom Hughes-3 wrote: To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some actual numbers, straight from the database: Users with edits who have agreed: 96917 Users without edits who have agreed: 104663 Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764 Users without edits who have not agreed: 129406 Changesets by users who have agreed: 7229801 (85.5%) Changesets by users who have not agreed: (14.5%) Edits by users who have agreed: 181482 (89.2%) Edits by users who have not agreed: 218756288 (10.8%) To add to that data: For the planet, the following percentage of data in version 1, has been contributed by Users agreeing to the CT. I.e. the percentage of data for which likely at least something of the object would remain. 88.7% of Nodes 89.2% of Ways 69.7% of Relations Furthermore, for the following percentage of data, all versions of a given Object have been contributed by Users agreeing to the CT: 87.2% der Nodes 84.2% der Ways 66.9% der Relations For Germany the values are: V1safe: 83.3% of Nodes 85.6% of Ways 92.0% of Relations Complete CT history: 81.3% of Nodes 81.3% of Ways 85.2% of Relations The data was collected from the latest full history planet dump from sometime in April with the users_agreed.txt from a couple of days ago, after the mailing action was over. Anonymous users get accounted as not agreed, and the usual caveats for relicensing statistics apply. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Announce-Beginning-of-Phase-4-of-license-change-process-tp6475830p6483835.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Hi, Renaud MICHEL wrote: Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764 Users without edits who have not agreed: 129406 When you write users who have not agreed, do you mean only those that have explicitly said no to the CT? Or do you include all the users who have not made a choice yet? The number includes all who have not made a choice yet. The number of people who have explicitly said no is 401. 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: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
I'm also very interested in this. Thanks John On 15 June 2011 06:44, Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. Cheers, Andy ___ 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: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
- Original Message - From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. Andy it may be better to ask your question on either talk-gb or legal-talk, but last weeks minutes of the LWG [1], under point 2 MATTERS ARISING (open action items from previous meetings) is the item Mike - Follow-up to try and get a meeting with OS, an item which has been on the minutes for months , and which I have always taken to mean the legal review has not happened yet. But as I say it may be better to address the question either to the LWG direct, or to ask on the other newsgroups. Regards David [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_119fr26kqdz Cheers, Andy ___ 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: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Mike Collinson wrote: I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. There may be no need - but I have the impression that many people are tired of waiting and eager to bring the licence change to a conclusion. I believe if the schedule remains that vague and there is no more definite suggestion for proceeding, then people will start purging non-relicenced data from the db on their own very soon. I think it might be a good idea to select a reasonable timeframe (say one month into phase 4) and issue a suggestion along the lines: We'd like to ask all current no-voters to cast their final vote until dayX. Likewise, we'd like to ask everybody to refrain from re-mapping data until after dayX. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Announce-Beginning-of-Phase-4-of-license-change-process-tp6475830p6478851.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 15/06/11 11:44, Andy Street wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. I'm also waiting for this... I've no real issues with the new terms, but cant accept them until this issue is resolved. It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet... -- Chris Jones, SUCS Admin http://sucs.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org wrote: It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet... There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been resistant. Sorry to appear to be picking on you, Chris, I know you aren't the only one. What seems backward to me is deciding to use a previously and famously verboten source for your edits without being perfectly clear that those edits are now permitted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been resistant. There would presumably be no need to engage with OS if LWG was happy that the OS OpenData License was compatible with the proposed CTs and ODbL+DbCL licenses. So can we take it from this that LWG's position is that under the current license from OS, OS OpenData is not compatible with the CTs and/or and ODbL+DbCL? We really need a straight answer on this now. If LWG does not believe OS OpenData is compatible, then there is going to be a big problem for the UK map,* which will need to be addressed sooner rather than later. If LWG does, and can support its reasoning (or, better still, offer indemnity to mappers who follow its advice), then we could save ourselves a lot of bother here. Myself and others who have used OS OpenData would be able to safely sign the CTs, can continue to map when phase 4 starts, and can have our OS OpenData and other contributions retained going forward. If LWG is not prepared to make such a statement on whether they believe OS OpenData is compatible, how can it justify forcing individual mappers to make essentially the same decision when they have to chose whether or not to sign the CTs? Robert. * Don't be fooled into thinking this is a small problem because of the small number of CT rejections in the UK. A lot of mappers have signed the CTs even though they have made use of OS OpenData in their contributions. -- Robert Whittaker ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org wrote: On 15/06/11 14:41, Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org wrote: It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet... There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been resistant. Sorry to appear to be picking on you, Chris, I know you aren't the only one. What seems backward to me is deciding to use a previously and famously verboten source for your edits without being perfectly clear that those edits are now permitted. A fair point, however at the time it was clear... since then the new CTs have complicated things. A relativity small number of my edits made use of OS Open data so it wouldn't be too much effort for me to replace any effected objects from survey or bing imagery but im loathed to do so until someone (the LWG?) can tell me one way or the other. Perhaps additional contacts from the community can inspire OS to respond? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 15/06/2011 14:41, Richard Weait wrote: What seems backward to me is deciding to use a previously and famously verboten source for your edits without being perfectly clear that those edits are now permitted. Where was it pronounced it was forbidden? Under CC it was acceptable at the time of release the new licence was still evolving so *none* knew for sure. We were informed by members former members of OSMF that the problem would be sorted out in due course. The incompetence of those involved prove otherwise. I was lead to believe that some were working on the new licence persuading OS to release data at the same time! It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a conflict. I find this irritating. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org wrote: It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet... There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been resistant. Sorry to appear to be picking on you, Chris, I know you aren't the only one. What seems backward to me is deciding to use a previously and famously verboten source for your edits without being perfectly clear that those edits are now permitted. Politely... Richard you are wrong. I'll see if I can drag Mike onto the list, he is the LWG person more involved with legal issues this side of the atlantic. / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a conflict. I find this irritating. No, this isn't a new thing, this has pretty much existed ever since people started to notice problems with the CTs and how much data would be incompatible. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
mc == Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz writes: mc As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 mc this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically mc practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined mc the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless mc they decide to accept). This currently numbers 406 in total mc compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms. This is disingenuous communication, glossing over the very important issue of how many users have not voted (leading, if this plan goes through, to the deletion of their contributions and of any subsequent edits). Reading odbl.de, 60% of users have accepted the new contributor terms in Europe (40% in the USA, the proportion worldwide is not shown). There 417k users. So (extrapolating) 200k have not accepted the new terms and 190k have accepted. Hopefully the decision on whether to go ahead with the odbl transition will be based on how much data would be deleted, not this kind of misleading statistic. -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr wrote: compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms. This is disingenuous communication, +1. Correct me if I am wrong but I remember a statement in last SOTM saying that 90% of the new accounts are never uploading anything to the database So please avoid sentences like 1 new account = 1 new contributor. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 15/06/2011 16:55, John Smith wrote: On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote: It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a conflict. I find this irritating. No, this isn't a new thing, this has pretty much existed ever since people started to notice problems with the CTs and how much data would be incompatible. When I asked, on a couple of occasions, I was told that it /was /compatible (but always with caveats) that it would work out happily in the end. Now the impotence of the OSMF/LWG is becoming apparent, they start slinging mud, even though they're the creators of the problem! Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Eric Marsden wrote: Reading odbl.de, 60% of users have accepted the new contributor terms in Europe (40% in the USA, the proportion worldwide is not shown). There 417k users. So (extrapolating) 200k have not accepted the new terms and 190k have accepted. Hopefully the decision on whether to go ahead with the odbl transition will be based on how much data would be deleted, not this kind of misleading statistic. Sorry, you've puzzled me a bit here. You state that it's better to cite how much data would be deleted. However, that directly contradicts your previous paragraph, in which you quote, um, the number of users, not the amount of data. Reading odbl.de, although 60% of users in Europe have accepted the new contributor terms, that actually equates to between 80% and 92% of nodes, and between 70% and 93% of ways. In North America, your 40% of users is 54%-94% of nodes, and 66-85% of ways.[1] Would you like to revise your assessment of who's doing the misleading here? cheers Richard [1] I suspect that when obvious bot edits are stripped out, the figure will be a lot higher, especially in America. Certainly, looking around my local area, the only significant non-relicensable objects are ways edited by someone who has made a trivial tag search-and-replace, which can easily be reverted without adverse effect on the data. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Announce-Beginning-of-Phase-4-of-license-change-process-tp6475830p6480006.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: [1] I suspect that when obvious bot edits are stripped out, the figure will be a lot higher, especially in America. Certainly, looking around my local area, the only significant non-relicensable objects are ways edited by someone who has made a trivial tag search-and-replace, which can easily be reverted without adverse effect on the data. Perhaps it is trivial, but I have yet to hear of anyone working on a script or even pseudocode as to how the cleanup will be performed. Especially one that intelligently handles these simple tag changes, way splits, merges, etc. What's mentioned on the wiki is a dumb method which simply deletes all objects created by non-acceptors, or reverts to the last version before being changed by a non-acceptor. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan Seems like an important item to address IMHO. -Josh ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:49 -0400, Josh Doe wrote: Perhaps it is trivial, but I have yet to hear of anyone working on a script or even pseudocode as to how the cleanup will be performed. Seems like an important item to address IMHO. -Josh According to the implementation plan, sometime after Phase 4 is implemented, the question will be asked of the community: What do we do with the people who have declined or not responded? So, never fear, in a few weeks, they (presumably the OSMF) will (apparently) start asking us (the community) what to do with the now invalid data. You didnt actually think they'd plan ahead, after all theyve only had 2 years and a million other people ask that same question. I for one am very interested to see how the question is asked and how it is responded to, like I think we all are. I guess we just have to wait for the phases to kick through before we (the community) have any idea what theyre planning. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Am 14.06.2011 22:33, schrieb Michael Collinson: I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. The License Working Group will continue listening to all feedback. There are a lot of open questions that have to be solved BEFORE any official licence change or private cleaning up the data ... - version history is incomplete: ways, which were splitted or joined, have lost parts of version history including mappers, that don't acceppted - what's about deleted objects? If a mapper, who don't accepted, for example has deleted a POI and mapped a building with similar tags, the building has to be deleted, but also the POI has to be restored?! So changesets may have to be verified for such things ... - Might be that it is not necessary to delete trivial edits (Might be trivial depends on the country of the edit ...) - ... and surely a mapper may decide to accept lately ... - ... So a private clean-up befor this questions are solved might - delete objects where it is not necessary (trivial, change decision) - not delete objects where it is necessary (splitted/joined ways which where partially mapped of non accepting mappers) - violate copyright, if he copy the old object - ... Heiko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson: Michael Collinson writes: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the public domain? Setting PD flag without accepting OBL/DBCL/CT isn't possible in the moment (or did I miss a loop hole, where you can set all flags independantly??) Or did you mean users declaring their edits INSIDE THE WIKI als PD like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain but not declaring it using the official PD flag, because they don't want to accept ODBL/CT...? Heiko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
- Original Message - From: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au To: Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:49 -0400, Josh Doe wrote: Perhaps it is trivial, but I have yet to hear of anyone working on a script or even pseudocode as to how the cleanup will be performed. Seems like an important item to address IMHO. -Josh According to the implementation plan, sometime after Phase 4 is implemented, the question will be asked of the community: What do we do with the people who have declined or not responded? So, never fear, in a few weeks, they (presumably the OSMF) will (apparently) start asking us (the community) what to do with the now This point was confirmed in the minutes of last nights LWG meeting [1] The LWG will not push for data removals ... this should be a community question. It will instead continue to work for as many acceptances as possible. Though I suppose it is possible that even though the LWG will not push for data removal, that the main OSMF board may decide to do so. David [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_120fdghcpj3 invalid data. You didnt actually think they'd plan ahead, after all theyve only had 2 years and a million other people ask that same question. I for one am very interested to see how the question is asked and how it is responded to, like I think we all are. I guess we just have to wait for the phases to kick through before we (the community) have any idea what theyre planning. David ___ 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: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote: Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson: Michael Collinson writes: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the public domain? Setting PD flag without accepting OBL/DBCL/CT isn't possible in the moment (or did I miss a loop hole, where you can set all flags independantly??) I declined the terms but checked the box for PD. I don't know if this is actually reflected in the database, but the form makes it possible. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Announce-Beginning-of-Phase-4-of-license-change-process-tp6475830p6481691.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Heiko Jacobs writes: Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson: Michael Collinson writes: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the public domain? Setting PD flag without accepting OBL/DBCL/CT isn't possible in the moment (or did I miss a loop hole, where you can set all flags independantly??) Or did you mean users declaring their edits INSIDE THE WIKI als PD like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain but not declaring it using the official PD flag, because they don't want to accept ODBL/CT...? Yes, inside the Wiki. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 15/06/11 11:44, Andy Street wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. I'm also waiting for this... I've no real issues with the new terms, but cant accept them until this issue is resolved. It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet... -- Chris Jones, SUCS Admin http://sucs.org ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). This currently numbers 406 in total compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms. They or our forking folks may wish to grab a planet dump now and another one just before the phase 5 cut-over to ODbL. Planet dumps are generally made every Wednesday as of 11:01 UK time and become available 3 days later. Next week's version will probably be made on Tuesday due to the coming UCL shutdown. I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. The License Working Group will continue listening to all feedback. Regards, Mike License Working Group [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Michael Collinson writes: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the public domain? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
