Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
2009/12/11 Anthony o...@inbox.org: I see no evidence that that's the case. I don't think attempting to impose a contractual agreement on others without their consent is going to work, and I think there will be significant negative side-effects to such immoral behavior. I don't think immoral is the right word here, people are trying to come up with a suitable method to make sure everyone is playing fair, if the data is improved isn't it only fair that the entire community benefits from it, since whom ever improved it is obviously benefiting from OSM data in the first place. Some would see it as immoral to not give back such changes to the community. While I agree with ODBL in principal, the devil is always in the details and I'm still trying to find somewhere to obtain Australian legal advice as to how this may adversely effect the Australian OSM community. Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this. This would be a disaster, but some have already mentioned having a read only database with non-ODBL data and then combining it on the tile server to get round this problem, the problem with that of course is how to remove non-ODBL data when ODBL data becomes available, since you wouldn't easily be able to edit or remove such data from a read only database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses nicely about giving us their added data back? It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little mutual trust can get you. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
2009/12/11 Paul Wagener osm-t...@paulwagener.nl: This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses nicely about giving us their added data back? It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little mutual trust can get you. Isn't that in essence what licenses are for? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
Saying This would be a disaster is a bit hyperbolic. Sure, people who hate OSMapping and just want to use bulk imports will be very, very disappointed, and possibly even a bit upset that they actually have to go out into the real world and make maps. ;-) On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/11 Anthony o...@inbox.org: I see no evidence that that's the case. I don't think attempting to impose a contractual agreement on others without their consent is going to work, and I think there will be significant negative side-effects to such immoral behavior. I don't think immoral is the right word here, people are trying to come up with a suitable method to make sure everyone is playing fair, if the data is improved isn't it only fair that the entire community benefits from it, since whom ever improved it is obviously benefiting from OSM data in the first place. Some would see it as immoral to not give back such changes to the community. While I agree with ODBL in principal, the devil is always in the details and I'm still trying to find somewhere to obtain Australian legal advice as to how this may adversely effect the Australian OSM community. Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this. This would be a disaster, but some have already mentioned having a read only database with non-ODBL data and then combining it on the tile server to get round this problem, the problem with that of course is how to remove non-ODBL data when ODBL data becomes available, since you wouldn't easily be able to edit or remove such data from a read only database. -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
John Smith wrote: 2009/12/11 Paul Wagener osm-t...@paulwagener.nl: This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses nicely about giving us their added data back? It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little mutual trust can get you. Isn't that in essence what licenses are for? That is the entire crux of this problem ... CAN we trust commercial organizations with big bank balances to play fair. I think the answer has to be 'NO' so we need the DATA protected a little better . -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
Op 11 dec 2009, om 10:11 heeft John Smith het volgende geschreven: 2009/12/11 Paul Wagener osm-t...@paulwagener.nl: This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses nicely about giving us their added data back? It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little mutual trust can get you. Isn't that in essence what licenses are for? No, the licenses are for forcing businesses to give us their added data back. That is something else entirely. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/11 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this. This would be a disaster, but some have already mentioned having a read only database with non-ODBL data and then combining it on the tile server to get round this problem, You can only do that if you release the tiles under CC-BY-SA, which means that anyone else is free to extract the data from the tiles and use it under CC-BY-SA. On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:12 AM, paul youlten paul.youl...@gmail.comwrote: Saying This would be a disaster is a bit hyperbolic. Sure, people who hate OSMapping and just want to use bulk imports will be very, very disappointed, and possibly even a bit upset that they actually have to go out into the real world and make maps. ;-) I'd certainly be upset if someone told me that my office is not part of the real world and therefore I'm not allowed to use it to make maps! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/11 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this. This would be a disaster, but some have already mentioned having a read only database with non-ODBL data and then combining it on the tile server to get round this problem, You can only do that if you release the tiles under CC-BY-SA, which means that anyone else is free to extract the data from the tiles and use it under CC-BY-SA. Isn't copyleft great! Real copyleft, not that ODbL crap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On 11/12/2009, at 8:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: so we don't need imported data? In most cases we don't need imported data, but it can be useful. For example rather than painstakingly crafting the entire coastline of Australia from a few GPS traces and a lot of imagery (much is relatively inaccessible), we can import it from someone's dataset and spend that large amount of time doing other things to improve OSM that we can't import data for. There are also some things where importing external datasets is the *only* way to get it into OSM. For example boundaries of areas that have no physical edge, just a (not necessarily straight) line on someone decided on at some point in time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
2009/12/11 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: so we don't need imported data? -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 From: paul youlten paul.youl...@gmail.com To: Liz ed...@billiau.net Liz, The coastline I did back in the old days was between Hastings in Sussex and Folkestone in Kent. I did this by walking along the high tide mark with my GPS. Bits of coastline that were inaccessible (e.g: Harbors, cliffs and off shore islands) were done with the assistance of Yahoo Aerial photos. Ok Paul, when you have enough time and energy to map 34,218 kilometres (21,262 mi) of coastline (excluding all offshore islands) of Australia let us know, in the mean time we will be making do with the imported data we have. We also don't have access to aerial imagery except a small fraction of the 7.8 million sq km of land mass, although with your help/donations I'm sure we could possibly get some more. In short put your money where your mouth is. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
Where does this Business Bad:OSM good binary come from? (I suspect the Germans ;-)) I don't understand how a business using OSM data for free and without thinking of the children (AKA giving back to the community) is bad for the project - every time we get ripped off we get a bigger audience, the more people that use the data the more more influential the map becomes and hence the greater the fun in contributing to it in the first place. It was meant to be fun - wasn't it? PY On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If Steve were to say let's go PD, everone would howl: You're only doing this so that CloudMade can rip us off! If Steve says let's go ODbL, he is accused of only doing this because it keeps CloudMade in business by making things more difficult for Google. If Steve were to say license change? are you stupid? let's remain where we are! then people will say that he isn't interested in putting OSM on a safe legal footing because CloudMade has arranged themselves with the imperfect situation and he'd rather sacrifice the project's data than change a system that works for CloudMade. So, whichever way he does it it's wrong, isn't it? Not at all. I assume whatever way he's doing things is in the best interest of CloudMade, but I never said there was anything wrong with that. I think it would be ridiculous to expect Steve to actively work against his own business interests. The very most I would expect from him is to recuse himself from any official board vote. What he says on the mailing lists is completely up to him. Having said that, the ability to create non-free rendered maps is certainly something that will appeal to some businesses. Have you read the ridiculous terms of the CloudMade terms of service recently? I'd quote them to you, but after reading through them yesterday I've put the site on my block list. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
Hi, paul youlten wrote: I don't understand how a business using OSM data for free and without thinking of the children (AKA giving back to the community) is bad for the project - every time we get ripped off we get a bigger audience, the more people that use the data the more more influential the map becomes and hence the greater the fun in contributing to it in the first place. That's how I see it, but there are people whose fun seems to be reduced by the idea that anyone could be making money off their spare time activity. Probably the same people who, ten minutes later, diligently update their Facebook profile so that Facebook gets more advertising revenue ;-) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
The Orange Telecom/Wikimedia Foundation business model is one that might work for OSM too. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009 Orange pay the Wikimedia Foundation a significant amount of money each year - not for permission to use the Wikipedia data (which is, of course, free) but to use the Wikipedia Logo (i.e: Orange see attribution as adding value to their product). Clearly Orange also benefit from being seen as a supporter of the Wikipedia project. The Wikimedia Foundation are on target to raise $1.75m from this sort of partnership 2009-2010. Clearly wikipedia is bigger and better known than OSM but it was always held up as a model for OSM. This kind of financial support is much more likely to happen if we encourage and make it easy for businesses to use OSM data. PY On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, paul youlten wrote: I don't understand how a business using OSM data for free and without thinking of the children (AKA giving back to the community) is bad for the project - every time we get ripped off we get a bigger audience, the more people that use the data the more more influential the map becomes and hence the greater the fun in contributing to it in the first place. That's how I see it, but there are people whose fun seems to be reduced by the idea that anyone could be making money off their spare time activity. Probably the same people who, ten minutes later, diligently update their Facebook profile so that Facebook gets more advertising revenue ;-) Bye Frederik -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:03 AM, paul youlten paul.youl...@gmail.comwrote: Where does this Business Bad:OSM good binary come from? (I suspect the Germans ;-)) No idea. Like I said, as a self-employed person, I find the distinction incredibly confusing :). Business is great. It's what puts food on my table every day. I don't understand how a business using OSM data for free and without thinking of the children (AKA giving back to the community) is bad for the project It's not. However, if we could convince businesses to give back to the community, it'd be better. Between PD and SA, as it applies to OSM, I think there's a lot of merit to both sides of the issue. However, although SteveC has tried to claim SA vs. ODbL is PD vs. SA, it isn't. SA is SA. PD is PD. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
2009/12/11 Anthony o...@inbox.org: It's not. However, if we could convince businesses to give back to the community, it'd be better. If you feel that way, the ODBL would in principal be the better option to ensure it happens with a stick just to make sure. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/11 Anthony o...@inbox.org: It's not. However, if we could convince businesses to give back to the community, it'd be better. If you feel that way, the ODBL would in principal be the better option to ensure it happens with a stick just to make sure. I see no evidence that that's the case. I don't think attempting to impose a contractual agreement on others without their consent is going to work, and I think there will be significant negative side-effects to such immoral behavior. Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On 12/9/09, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues. Once data is licensed PD, you really don't need to ever deal with the issue again, afaik. I am in favour of PD because I believe that in _this_ case it would be better for the free software community: copyleft works best when there are just few widely known and mostly easy to understand licenses, otherwise it becomes an obstacle; the odbl is even worse than the GPL as far as understandability goes. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
Hi, Anthony wrote: Or we can just come right out and name names. Google has built a business around mixing public domain data with its own proprietary improvements. Cloudmade has build a business around provid[ing] professional services around open mapdata. If everyone who improves map data has to share their improvements (with improvements defined a way that doesn't include the types of improvements which Cloudmade makes, namely Produced Works), Google loses, and Cloudmade, at worst, isn't affected at all. It's a difficult situation being OSMF chairman, LWG leader, and CloudMade founder at the same time. (I did campaign for no commercial interests to be represented in the OSMF board in the election run-up but, as always, nobody listened...) If Steve were to say let's go PD, everone would howl: You're only doing this so that CloudMade can rip us off! If Steve says let's go ODbL, he is accused of only doing this because it keeps CloudMade in business by making things more difficult for Google. If Steve were to say license change? are you stupid? let's remain where we are! then people will say that he isn't interested in putting OSM on a safe legal footing because CloudMade has arranged themselves with the imperfect situation and he'd rather sacrifice the project's data than change a system that works for CloudMade. So, whichever way he does it it's wrong, isn't it? On a side note, CloudMade would certainly be affected by ODbL; for example, they simplify OSM data for faster rendering, and they pre-compute routing data for faster routing. Both data sets are derived databases used in the making of a produced work, and as such they fall under section 4.6 of the ODbL. CloudMade will either have to make the data available or at least make available an algorithmic description of how this data is created. Having said that, the ability to create non-free rendered maps is certainly something that will appeal to some businesses. 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] Why PD is not better for business
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: It's a difficult situation being OSMF chairman, LWG leader, and CloudMade founder at the same time. (I did campaign for no commercial interests to be represented in the OSMF board in the election run-up but, as always, nobody listened...) Conflict of Interest should be properly declared. So, whichever way he does it it's wrong, isn't it? In that case some honesty would be appreciated - to say that this situation is a problem for Cloudmade and Geofabrik while another situation is not. It's called declaring a conflict of interest. I understand Australian law on this matter, having been recently re-trained on the roles of company directors. Here they term it Governance Training, and I would be please if the OSMF Board spent money on itself and paid for all its directors to have this sort of training, if this has not already occurred. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If Steve were to say let's go PD, everone would howl: You're only doing this so that CloudMade can rip us off! If Steve says let's go ODbL, he is accused of only doing this because it keeps CloudMade in business by making things more difficult for Google. If Steve were to say license change? are you stupid? let's remain where we are! then people will say that he isn't interested in putting OSM on a safe legal footing because CloudMade has arranged themselves with the imperfect situation and he'd rather sacrifice the project's data than change a system that works for CloudMade. So, whichever way he does it it's wrong, isn't it? Not at all. I assume whatever way he's doing things is in the best interest of CloudMade, but I never said there was anything wrong with that. I think it would be ridiculous to expect Steve to actively work against his own business interests. The very most I would expect from him is to recuse himself from any official board vote. What he says on the mailing lists is completely up to him. Having said that, the ability to create non-free rendered maps is certainly something that will appeal to some businesses. Have you read the ridiculous terms of the CloudMade terms of service recently? I'd quote them to you, but after reading through them yesterday I've put the site on my block list. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
Hi, I would like to counter another often-repeated misconception about PD (or CC0, or BSD) licenses, namely that these licenses are better for business because they allow businesses to do what they want. The matter arose in the follwoing exchange here on talk: As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for * and all the other companies so we could do what we like with the data. Yeah, but it'd be a *lot* better for some of the other companies (like, maybe 10^100) than it would be for *. It doesn't matter who said this because it is an idea that many people in OSM seem to share: Do PD and big business will love you because they can rip you off; do share-alike and be protected from such rip-off. I fact, restrictions often provide a competitive advantage for business. (Sure - some business models will not work with the restrictions but others will.) The reason for this is that IP licensing is a very difficult terrain, even more so if viewed internationally. Any share-alike license footed in international IP law, like CC-BY-SA or ODbL, is necessarily complex as well. What constitutes a derived work, what is substantial, how do database law and copyright mix, what constitutes the acceptance of a contract, and so on. We need lawyers to navigate the complex legal system just like we need tax attorneys to navigate the complex tax system. Less restrictions favour individuals. Nobody will think twice before using a public domain dataset for a project he's doing. More restrictions favour an elite few who have fully understood the restrictions and can work with them. And the elite few, that's generally (large) companies. Because companies make money, they can afford lawyers. They can afford to find out what exactly the restrictions are and where the niche is that they can use. They have the means to design their project in a way that fits the license. They can (for a fee) help other navigate the license restrictions, or they can buy an insurance that helps them mitigate the risk of accidental license violation. This doesn't necessarily mean that share-alike is *good* for business, but I believe that the difficulties that share-alike brings are prone to hit a law-abiding hobbyist individual harder than a business giant with a legal department (that's assuming both want to play fair). 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] Why PD is not better for business
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, I would like to counter another often-repeated misconception about PD (or CC0, or BSD) licenses, namely that these licenses are better for business because they allow businesses to do what they want. The matter arose in the follwoing exchange here on talk: As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for * and all the other companies so we could do what we like with the data. Yeah, but it'd be a *lot* better for some of the other companies (like, maybe 10^100) than it would be for *. It doesn't matter who said this because it is an idea that many people in OSM seem to share: Do PD and big business will love you because they can rip you off; do share-alike and be protected from such rip-off. That definitely wasn't what I said. I fact, restrictions often provide a competitive advantage for business. Competitive advantage is in fact exactly what I was talking about. Restrictions can serve to benefit one company (which we'll call *), compared to another company (which we'll call 10^100). Or we can just come right out and name names. Google has built a business around mixing public domain data with its own proprietary improvements. Cloudmade has build a business around provid[ing] professional services around open mapdata. If everyone who improves map data has to share their improvements (with improvements defined a way that doesn't include the types of improvements which Cloudmade makes, namely Produced Works), Google loses, and Cloudmade, at worst, isn't affected at all. Less restrictions favour individuals. Less restrictions favor some individuals, sometimes, depending on what those restrictions are. This isn't an individuals vs. corporations thing. Let's not get too commie here, okay? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This doesn't necessarily mean that share-alike is *good* for business, but I believe that the difficulties that share-alike brings are prone to hit a law-abiding hobbyist individual harder than a business giant with a legal department (that's assuming both want to play fair). If I understand your argument: 1) As an individual, PD (public-domain type licenses) is easier to use than SA (sharealike type licenses) 2) As a business, SA is relatively easy, perhaps almost as easy to use as PD. 3) Therefore, there is no benefit to PD. Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues. Once data is licensed PD, you really don't need to ever deal with the issue again, afaik. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues. I don't know. This whole businesses vs. individuals thing is confusing to me, as I'm self-employed :). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business
Hi, Steve Bennett wrote: Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is the main benefit? No, but those against PD are sometimes accusing those in favour of PD that they had some sinister business motive; or in this special case, there's a business guy who says if I wanted to rip you off then I would make a case for PD and not a share-alike license! Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
