Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
do you think that you can update the data before we enter to the read only phase? I don't want to push you...you data was very helpful for remapping. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5607499.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] ODbL-clean Coastlines
Paul Norman wrote When examining the data, I found most of the ODbL-dirty status was mainly from the following accounts: hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (Antarctica) Kin (Antarctica) Blars (US West coast) Actually, in might be pretty simple in the first case. To the best of my knowledge, the account hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (translation: hate_osm_nitpickers) is known for mass downloading, erasing and re-uploading the unmodified data under his name. In his case dropping all his changesets in the area might be the solution. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5603212.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] ODbL-clean Coastlines
just fyithe generation of the processedc_p failed. It say it has 46 Byte. coastlinec_p seems to be okay -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5604606.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] ODbL-clean Coastlines
From: ThomasB [mailto:toba0...@yahoo.de] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines just fyithe generation of the processedc_p failed. It say it has 46 Byte. coastlinec_p seems to be okay My jxapi instance is lagged behind - it lost its state.txt file in a crash and fell a couple days behind. Not knowing the age of the data, my generation script refused to generate, as intended. My upload script ignored the return code and tried to upload anyways, not as intended. Also, a bug in cleanway was found. Cleanway ignores tags and queries WTFE which does not consider odbl=clean, so cleanway does not consider odbl=clean. I can fix this, but need to write some code. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
On 3/24/2012 7:13 AM, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com - Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP in the ways and they can be retained. Are you saying that it is impossible for data originally derived from PD to ever have IP in it, no matter what else is subsequently done to it? No. What he's saying is that the person who imported, by simply importing PD data without adding anything to it, has no copyright interest in it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
- Original Message - From: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:34 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome. A PNG showing the OSM coastline post-transition along with red dots for where the coastcheck program found errors is at http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines24b.png The red dots represent places where coastcheck found an error A few things can be seen: No continent will generate a satisfactory rendering. Australia, the US, most of Africa and most of Eurasia from 50 degrees south will be completely flooded. Paul thanks a lot for generating this, the situation is far worse than I had thought it was going to be. There are 3471 points where coastcheck found errors. Normally I would expect about 10. The following areas are particularly bad: The west coast of the US The US coast of the Great Lakes Australia Antarctica (which has significant parts completely missing with no error points since there's nothing left to even try to close) When examining the data, I found most of the ODbL-dirty status was mainly from the following accounts: hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (Antarctica) Kin (Antarctica) Blars (US West coast) I see a few ways for dealing with the coastlines: - Remapping. Obviously this is the only option where the coastline was actually created by the non-acceptor. One advantage of remapping is the possibility that there are now better data sets available for import than the PGS data which was originally used. I'm particularly thinking here of the US Canada. - Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP in the ways and they can be retained. Are you saying that it is impossible for data originally derived from PD to ever have IP in it, no matter what else is subsequently done to it? - odbl=clean. It's generally easy to verify that a way is a coastline from imagery There is I think one other option. Since a pretty much error free processed_p.shp file will be available just up to the licence switch over, then is it not legally possible to continue use this file in Mapnik combined with post switch over OSM data to create the maps. The missing coastline in OSM can then be re-mapped on a more leisurely basis. David My coastline files are available in the usual location of http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/coastlines/ but are named coastlinec_p and processedc_p. processedc_p has not yet uploaded but will be complete in about an hour. Additional detail of some regions can be found at http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-europe.png http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-lakes.png http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-west.png http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-nz.png http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-au.png If opening processedc_p in QGIS be sure to make a spatial index or it will crawl. A refresher on coastlines for those who haven't tagged them in awhile: Direction *matters*. Land on the left, water on the right. Each end of each way should join with exactly one other natural=coastline way I am not sure when each processedc_p file will be completed. Cron starts the job at 5 AM PST and I'd expect it to take about 5 hours, mainly depending on WTFE server speed and my upload speed to errol. The coastlinec_p files will be uploaded first so arrive at the server earlier. Technical details: The results of the jxapi way[natural=coastline] is filtered by cleanway to remove any objects reported as severity=normal, leaving behind 0 or 1 node ways if necessary. It then is passed to the coastcheck programs and the results uploaded. A CT-clean way to which a decliner added a tag other than natural=coastline would be removed by this algorithm, but not by the rebuild. ___ 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] ODbL-clean Coastlines
I was just going to suggest this, while it limits you to CC_by-SA 2.0 as a licence for tiles (or similar), there is no reason that you couldn't use a pre-licence change coastline for rendering (in the case of the main OSM site, the tiles are going to remain CC-by-SA 2.0 anyway). Simon Am 24.03.2012 12:13, schrieb David Groom: There is I think one other option. Since a pretty much error free processed_p.shp file will be available just up to the licence switch over, then is it not legally possible to continue use this file in Mapnik combined with post switch over OSM data to create the maps. The missing coastline in OSM can then be re-mapped on a more leisurely basis. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
One advantage of remapping is the possibility that there are now better data sets available for import than the PGS data which was originally used. I'm particularly thinking here of the US Canada. This is exactly what I've been doing – non-safe coastline in the UK using the OS OpenData StreetView MHWS to go by, it's a massive amount more detailed than the PGS stuff as an added bonus. Bob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
Paul Norman writes: I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome. Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2) imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it would have been deleted. Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import. If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot successfully pursue a claim of trespass. -- --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: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
- Original Message - From: Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com To: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines Paul Norman writes: I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome. Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2) imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it would have been deleted. Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import. If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. I guess there are at least two problems. Firstly the PGS import script had a simplification factor variable, which the person running the import could change. I know that prior to doing my imports I played around with a number of different values for this variable to strike what I thought was an acceptable trade off between number of nodes created, and the complexity of the resulting ways. Therefore what was uploaded to OSM was not simply PGS data, but was PGS data as amended by my decision making process. I guess you would have to know if the user who did the imports in question made any similar changes. Secondly you could use the PGS import script in two ways. Either (i) run the script against the PGS data and let the script directly upload to OSM ; or (ii) use script to create an OSM file, which could then be edited in JOSM, and then use JOSM to upload the data. If choosing method (ii) you were then able to look at the data in JOSM and make corrections to it before uploading to OSM. Although when doing my imports I started using (i) I later switched to method (ii) because that way what I uploaded to OSM was more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference between the resulting data in this instance and data which If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. David It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot successfully pursue a claim of trespass. -- --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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
David Groom writes: more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference between the resulting data in this instance and data which If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. How would we ever know? They're anonymous. If they want to come forward and claim their copyright, then sure. But if not, then not. You can't be anonymous and claim a copyright. The two concepts are incompatible. -- --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: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
On 24.03.2012 19:12, Russ Nelson wrote: David Groom writes: more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference between the resulting data in this instance and data which If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. How would we ever know? They're anonymous. If they want to come forward and claim their copyright, then sure. But if not, then not. They are not anonymous. You just can't see their nickname. If they log in and agree to the contributor terms their edits will be contained in the ODbL version of the planet. Here is a list of changesets of agreeing users still listed as anonymous UID 0 http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/anon_changesets_agreed.txt Users not agreeing or not responding have to be treated the same way, regardless of their nick known or not. Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
-Original Message- From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:42 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines Paul Norman writes: I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome. Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2) imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it would have been deleted. Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import. If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot successfully pursue a claim of trespass. Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state your name on it. As OSMF is the party wanting to do something not allowed by the (implied) license of the contributer, they have to seek permission. If the copyright holder decides not to reply, OSMF doesn't have permission to license it under different terms. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
Stephan Knauss writes: Users not agreeing or not responding have to be treated the same way, regardless of their nick known or not. Non-responsive. -- --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: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
-Original Message- From: David Groom [mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines - Original Message - From: Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines Paul Norman writes: I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome. Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2) imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it would have been deleted. Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import. If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. I guess there are at least two problems. Firstly the PGS import script had a simplification factor variable, which the person running the import could change. I know that prior to doing my imports I played around with a number of different values for this variable to strike what I thought was an acceptable trade off between number of nodes created, and the complexity of the resulting ways. Therefore what was uploaded to OSM was not simply PGS data, but was PGS data as amended by my decision making process. I guess you would have to know if the user who did the imports in question made any similar changes. Secondly you could use the PGS import script in two ways. Either (i) run the script against the PGS data and let the script directly upload to OSM ; or (ii) use script to create an OSM file, which could then be edited in JOSM, and then use JOSM to upload the data. If choosing method (ii) you were then able to look at the data in JOSM and make corrections to it before uploading to OSM. Although when doing my imports I started using (i) I later switched to method (ii) because that way what I uploaded to OSM was more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference between the resulting data in this instance and data which If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different. Yes - You'd need to know the process the importer used to see if they had any IP in what was uploaded. This has been done for some CORINE imports with changeset overrides (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
Paul Norman writes: It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot successfully pursue a claim of trespass. Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state your name on it. I can make any kind of claims of ownership of land that I want. Unless I go to the county clerk's office and register my claim under my name, they won't enforce my claim against anyone else. But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You have to consider what copyright law is for: it's a temporary monopoly granted to protect revenue. If there's no potential for restricting distribution under CC-By-SA, and there's no potential for restricting distribution under the OdBL, what loss in revenue has anybody suffered? What nutcase is going to bother to sue anybody over distributing under one free license versus a different free license where neither one has the potential for proprietary distribution? Nobody's making money here, and it costs money to sue. A LOT of money. No lawyer is going to take your case on unless there are punitive or actual damages. Worst comes to worse, you claim innocent infringement because you thought you were distributing under fair use, you delete the offending data, and life goes on. In other words, the worst a lawsuit is going to cost the OSMF is THE HARM IT'S VOLUNTARILY DOING TO ITSELF. -- --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: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
-Original Message- From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:21 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines Paul Norman writes: It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted ordeclined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post yourland *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannotsuccessfully pursue a claim of trespass. Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state your name on it. I can make any kind of claims of ownership of land that I want. Unless I go to the county clerk's office and register my claim under my name, they won't enforce my claim against anyone else. But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. There are people strongly opposed to the license change who have not declined. OSMF has the exact same rights for redistributing contributions from someone who has not responded as someone has declined. You have to consider what copyright law is for: it's a temporary monopoly granted to protect revenue. If there's no potential for restricting distribution under CC-By-SA, and there's no potential for restricting distribution under the OdBL, what loss in revenue has anybody suffered? What nutcase is going to bother to sue anybody over distributing under one free license versus a different free license where neither one has the potential for proprietary distribution? Nobody's making money here, and it costs money to sue. A LOT of money. No lawyer is going to take your case on unless there are punitive or actual damages. Copyright holders have plenty of options short of suing. I believe in some jurisdictions damages are automatic if the copyright is registered. Worst comes to worse, you claim innocent infringement because you thought you were distributing under fair use, you delete the offending data, and life goes on. In other words, the worst a lawsuit is going to cost the OSMF is THE HARM IT'S VOLUNTARILY DOING TO ITSELF. You think that OSMF could claim that distributing contributions that it knows it only has a license to under cc-by-sa under a different license could be fair use? Also remember that these people are not anonymous to the OSMF. They've got registration information on them just like they do on every other user. It's just not displayed in what they make public through the API and planet files. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
- Original Message - From: Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines Paul Norman writes: It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot successfully pursue a claim of trespass. Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state your name on it. I can make any kind of claims of ownership of land that I want. Unless I go to the county clerk's office and register my claim under my name, they won't enforce my claim against anyone else. But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You The argument hey, we understand we don't know if we have any right to use this data, buts lets leave it in and hope no one complains doesn't sound a particularly moral one to me. It also seems to set a rather dangerous precedent. have to consider what copyright law is for: it's a temporary monopoly granted to protect revenue. If there's no potential for restricting distribution under CC-By-SA, and there's no potential for restricting distribution under the OdBL, what loss in revenue has anybody suffered? What nutcase is going to bother to sue anybody over distributing under one free license versus a different free license where neither one has the potential for proprietary distribution? Nobody's making money here, and it costs money to sue. A LOT of money. No lawyer is going to take your case on unless there are punitive or actual damages. Worst comes to worse, you claim innocent infringement because you thought you were distributing under fair use, you delete the offending data, and life goes on. In other words, the worst a lawsuit is going to cost the OSMF is THE HARM IT'S VOLUNTARILY DOING TO ITSELF. Your worse case sounds so harmless. Of course it's possible to sketch an alternative worse case scenario: At some time in the future after being asked to delete the offending data, the data is deleted and ... ... a) all those contributors who had made edits to that data after 1 April 2012 get very annoyed because they see the results of their work deleted., and when they query this they are told hey, its a risk we thought we'd take, and by the way we may have to delete a load more data in the future, so be careful what bits of OSM you edit. b) users of OSM data get very annoyed because having seen masses of data disappear once, they suddenly see masses of data disappear again, and when they query this they are told hey, its a risk we thought we'd take, and by the way we may have to delete a load more data in the future, so be careful which bits of OSM data you use. David -- --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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
David Groom writes: But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You The argument hey, we understand we don't know if we have any right to use this data, buts lets leave it in and hope no one complains doesn't sound a particularly moral one to me. It also seems to set a rather dangerous precedent. Copyright isn't property. It's a bargain. We agree not to copy a work for a period of time, unless the copying is not for profit, is educational, is limited in quantity and/or a number of other nuances that don't fit into not particularly moral. Your worse case sounds so harmless. Of course it's possible to sketch an alternative worse case scenario: At some time in the future after being asked to delete the offending data, the data is deleted and ... ... a) all those contributors who had made edits to that data after 1 April 2012 get very annoyed because they see the results of their work deleted., You are describing the current case, more or less. We had to kill OSM to save it. We already are finding that swathes of data are contaminated and will be deleted, e.g. most of the west coast of the U.S. and most of the Great Lakes, which also means going up a fair ways into the continent because the larger rivers are considered coastline. That was a gotcha for me. The Racquette, the Grass, and the Oswegatchie were all going to be deleted because they were coastline, public domain data imported by a user we cannot ask to sign onto the CT, but who supposedly might sue us even though they can't even be bothered to decline. I'm FINE with preserving the anonymity, and I'm even FINE with allowing anonymous users to decline. I'm NOT FINE with allowing unnamed people to hold a copyright without bothering to decline. There's a REASON why copyright notices have to contain the name of the copyright holder. This situation has just gotten ridiculous. The OSMF is saying that it cannot use: o public domain data, o which may have been edited, but which shows no signs of having been, o which has been modified until it is not recognizable as the original. o imported by a user whom nobody can contact, o who has not bothered to decline acceptance of the OdBL, o a license nearly identical to the existing license. And people are trying to defend this, against all logic, because they think copyright is inviolate, and that judges are just computers, executing the law as if their JUDGEment cannot come into play. -- --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
