Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:20 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: My only point is that, like sf.net we should not be hosting non free software on the osm site (s). OSM wiki is not a project hosting site, so your analogy is misguided. It's a collection of information about OSM things, so if you want to make it relevant, you shouldn't employ censorship. After all, OSM wiki is already full of advertizing (take a look at the first couple of sentences on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Garmin page). As long as information on the wiki is objective and doesn't try to promote somebody's commercial interests _directly_, I don't see why non-open source software shouldn't be mentioned. The authors of such software should however be aware that placing the documentation/manuals for their software on the OSM wiki is problematic, since the license (probably) doesn't allow them to reuse the docs somewhere else. That's why I decided not to host the docs there for the OSM project I'm currently working on. And yes, it's not open-source. Regards, Igor ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
The wiki is good for detailing software that uses OSM. It can sometimes give an OSM view. The odd extra page on the wiki is not a great deal of strain on resources and they always have to be aware the wiki can be edit (although I hope nobody trolls with bad comments). I would not call it a promotion though, if it is linked to on the homepage then we have to ask why. -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
Saying that it is not translated due to lack of interest, and not even having the sources to translate is pretty weak. People could work on the translation, they could work on making it better. I don't see how the language strings would be infringing on the guys previous Employers. Next point, why openstreetmap.de is hosting it? It seems to be a confused relationship, why should people give money to osm to host non free software? I am confused now, would like to know the guidelines. What about the freedom to copy the websites, now the topo.openstreetmap.de cannot be mirrored freely, can it? Non free software should pay for their own hosting. Or am I missing something here? What are the guidelines for hosting on openstreetmap servers? there is no demand for only open source software or services. The openstreetmap.org site is free and using open data and open source software. There seems to be a great demand for it, wikipedia is another example. I dont understand your argument. Please explain. Just recently OSM has gotten endorsement from many free software groups, do they know that they are endorsing non free software? mike On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 May 2010 15:22, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: It sends a bad message to have non free software being promoted our wiki. Companies offering commercial services are also on the wiki, OSM's primary goal is freely available data, there is no demand for only open source software or services. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Does OSM have any guidelines about software that is hosted on the wiki? Can people just make software under any license and then put it on the wiki for free advertising ? It is not in any sense hosted on the wiki. If it were hosted on OSMF servers (which I don't believe it is), the server would be dev, and this policy would apply: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dev_Server_Account_Policy It is not even advertised on the wiki. Information != advertising. The city of London, for example, is mentioned on the wiki even though there are presumably parts of London which are not open source. openstreetmap.de is not AFAIK an OSMF server. talk-de would be a more sensible place to discuss openstreetmap.de. (FWIW I have no idea what OSM Composer is.) Can I advertise anything I want on the wiki? I know that flossk our group in Kosovo has guidelines on non free software Good for your group in Kosovo. Maybe the fact that flossk has FLOSS in the name, and OSM doesn't, might give you a clue there. OSM is an open data project, not a free software project. cheers RIchard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
Osm composer is designed specifically for Garmin GPS and its MapSource software. We promote Garmin because its technically the best, and maps can be easily made for it. And yes, its non commerial. And thats great! As soon as there is an Ibuntu product with the same capabilities, and easy GUI. This OSM composer is the best the comnunity can make so far. It uses all the tools available. . And is Do Not Sell. Because its a by-product of OSM, just like a MUG is. You are free todo what you want with OSM data. As long as it says it came from OSM. Check openmtbmap for the awesome updates of that map. A transparent contour overlay is what we want. Hope that helps, Sam On 4/30/10, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Saying that it is not translated due to lack of interest, and not even having the sources to translate is pretty weak. People could work on the translation, they could work on making it better. I don't see how the language strings would be infringing on the guys previous Employers. Next point, why openstreetmap.de is hosting it? It seems to be a confused relationship, why should people give money to osm to host non free software? I am confused now, would like to know the guidelines. What about the freedom to copy the websites, now the topo.openstreetmap.de cannot be mirrored freely, can it? Non free software should pay for their own hosting. Or am I missing something here? What are the guidelines for hosting on openstreetmap servers? there is no demand for only open source software or services. The openstreetmap.org site is free and using open data and open source software. There seems to be a great demand for it, wikipedia is another example. I dont understand your argument. Please explain. Just recently OSM has gotten endorsement from many free software groups, do they know that they are endorsing non free software? mike On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 May 2010 15:22, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: It sends a bad message to have non free software being promoted our wiki. Companies offering commercial services are also on the wiki, OSM's primary goal is freely available data, there is no demand for only open source software or services. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
Am 01.05.2010 09:42, schrieb David Murn: My whole reason for dedicating efforts to OSM, rather than other projects such as google mapmaker, is due to the forced openness which every user/member has to comply with. If I wanted to be part of a pseudo-free map project, Id go back to google, but I like the thought that if I release/create data under one licence, someone cannot come along and use that code or data in their proprietary software. This is a free map data project, not an OSS has to rule the world project. With your logic, we would have to ban any Windows based software from OSM, any Garmin based binary maps and so on. Remember: You can use proprietary software on top of Linux. Is Linux a pseudo-free OS project then? Of course, this is assuming that you really did mean your comment about OSM being only about the data and not about the software, which I can only assume you dont? You're mixing things up. Richard writes OSS software (e.g. the online editor Potlatch that starts when you press the Edit button), I'm writing OSS (e.g. small parts of JOSM). Most at OSM *love* to see OSS for manipulating/rendering/using our map data and most of the OSM developers are writing only free software. But if there's a proprietary solution available we don't hide it from our map data users. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
David Murn wrote: I had been considering making all my contributions to OSM, thinking that 'open' in OSM means the same as 'open' in open-source, ie. you can use my software and my changes, but if you derive anything from my work, you cannot impose restrictions above and beyond the licence the content was released under. It is the same 'open' as in Open Source. However, just as with Open Source Software, the forced openness does not extend across the boundary between content and software: You are allowed to use GIMP for creating an image that you publish under a proprietary license, and you are allowed to edit CC-by-sa images in Photoshop. Similarly, you are allowed to load CC-by-sa OSM data with proprietary software. Of course, this doesn't mean that software provided for using OSM cannot also have FOSS requirements. So if you create GPL software to work with OSM and someone integrates your software with theirs, then they have to publish it as GPL software, too. But that's because of the software's license, not due to the license of OSM data. My whole reason for dedicating efforts to OSM, rather than other projects such as google mapmaker, is due to the forced openness which every user/member has to comply with. Google Map Maker cannot be considered free because they put /data/ under a proprietary license. Also, they don't just /allow/ use of their data by proprietary software, they /force/ you to use proprietary software if you even want to edit their map. Of course, this is assuming that you really did mean your comment about OSM being only about the data and not about the software, which I can only assume you dont? An impressive amount of software has been created by OSM project members and/or for use with OSM, and a lot of that is FOSS. Software is an important part of the OSM ecosystem, so even though the core idea of the project is to create free map data, the creation of associated software is inevitably part of that. If all that hurts your head, it hurts my head just as much seeing closed-source software promoted by a site whos sole purpose is the freedom of information. OSM Composer isn't promoted by OSM. The tool is presented in the wiki, and it's correctly categorized as Proprietary Software. Imo, these wiki pages about software are a useful service for project members who want to know where and how OSM can be used. openstreetmap.de, btw, is not officially part of the project. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 9:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 May 2010 17:42, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: If all that hurts your head, it hurts my head just as much seeing closed-source software promoted by a site whos sole purpose is the freedom of information. No one is actively promoting anything, Mike is using emotive language to push his morals, however this has little to do with the fact of the matter, describing software on the wiki that people can use is in the interest of OSM users in general, people want to know how to use the data as much as create it. Please don't get to personal here, it is not about my morals. It is about consistency and clarity. I just find it confusing. Really there is no clarity in this example, as to the rights of the user. What is the exact license of the software? What is the agreement that you enter into by downloading? I would say that it is not clear. mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On 1 May 2010 18:27, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Please don't get to personal here, it is not about my morals. It is about consistency and clarity. There isn't much I can do about the truth offending you, you did indeed use emotive language to push an agenda based on your morals. I just find it confusing. Really there is no clarity in this example, as to the rights of the user. What is the exact license of the software? What is the agreement that you enter into by downloading? I would say that it is not clear. What does software license ambiguities have to do with the OSM wiki? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi there, just a question, freeware for non commercial usage / non open source being promoted on the osm wiki? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OSM_Composer Is this what we want ? is there any policy on that? I know we have strict policies on map data, but what about wikiusage and usage of the resources of the osm. It sends a bad message to have non free software being promoted our wiki. Someone asked me to help translate this tool, and I was shocked to find no source code. Does OSM have any guidelines about software that is hosted on the wiki? Can people just make software under any license and then put it on the wiki for free advertising ? Lets make an analogy: Wikipedia is generally seen as a free and open project, never the less, it has articles on pretty much any commercial product. Even worse, it has articles on the most atrocious criminals and mass murderers. Does that make Wikipedia endorse or promote the mass murderers? Does it make wikipedia less free? The same applies to the OSM-wiki. The wiki does not promote or endorse anything. The wiki is a source of information. OpenStreetMap is a open (share a like) _Data_ Project. It being open means it does not make any restrictions on how you use the data. Including that you can use the data commercially and that you can use the data with any software you like i.e. also with proprietary software. Can I advertise anything I want on the wiki? As long as the article is factually correct, written in a neutral way and describes a project/product/event that has a significant OSM component to it, then imho yes. It is valuable information about OSM and thus belongs on the wiki. It also takes up a negligable amount of resources. Hosting projects on OSMF servers (be it directly part of the osm.org or on the devserver) however is imho a different matter. There I too would think a general policy of requiring all software run to be under an OpenSource license would be appropriate. If nothing else, it is quite important from a practical point of view. As with any volunteer driven approach, people come and go. And if the source code isn't open, the tool becomes unmaintainable as soon as the person who wrote it leaves. And that policy appears to have more or less been adhered to so far. I can't speak about the specific case of OSM composer and how it is hosted on openstreetmap.de (Those servers were between sponsored afaik by a single commercial company, and not by the community, not that that should matter) I know that flossk our group in Kosovo has guidelines on non free software and we dont allow people to use our conference or donated resources to promote non-free software, because our mission is to promote software freedom and data freedom, not just data freedom. The furthest I would go on rules on the wiki is that one could potentially mandate that every page describing a piece of software needs to make it clear under what license it is and if it is or is not opensource. However, given it is a wiki, everyone can add that information already and hopefully most pages do have that information anyway. Kai Autotranslate from the wikipage : Why is not Open Source Composer? Composer shares code and base libraries with a few other programs I've written over time and used by various organizations. First, these interfaces must always remain backward compatible, on the other hand, these older users' rights and would not part with an opening to the code agree. Additionally, for me, especially if a program usable for the (hobby) is the user. And it takes a lot more with proper documentation, as the source code with which you can usually start anyway not in the least. Well, lets see the source code that he parts he can publish and we can rewrite the parts that are not available. I think it would make more sense to have the app being open and have 1-2 libs that are not and should be replaced as closed libs. In any case, we could work on the translation. Also, proper documentation is the source, no? I mean want more proper documentation can you get except source code that works? you can debug it. thanks, mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 18:34 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 1 May 2010 18:27, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Please don't get to personal here, it is not about my morals. It is about consistency and clarity. There isn't much I can do about the truth offending you, you did indeed use emotive language to push an agenda based on your morals. I would hope that every user of OpenStreetMap has the same 'morals' of wishing open-ness and freedom upon everyone else. Strangely, it also becomes emotive for some points. I just find it confusing. Really there is no clarity in this example, as to the rights of the user. What is the exact license of the software? What is the agreement that you enter into by downloading? I would say that it is not clear. What does software license ambiguities have to do with the OSM wiki? From quickly looking at the mentioned page, a quick search for 'license' reveals only one match, the line 'Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license'. This would lead one to believe that the content of the page (and the link to the installer for the app which the page is all about) are available under a free licence. I can see both points of this argument, but while James seems to be asking for consistency within OSM, everyone seems to be making excuses as to why there doesnt have to be consistency. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
David Murn wrote: I can see both points of this argument, but while James seems to be asking for consistency within OSM, everyone seems to be making excuses as to why there doesnt have to be consistency. Welcome to OSM. We're not consistent. We're a glorious anarchic mess. That's why the project works. The data is licensed uniformly under CC-BY-SA (though some people, myself included, dual-license their contributions under a more permissive public domain declaration). We hope that this encourages a broad ecosystem of software, renderings, and other wondrous things. We do not specify what form this ecosystem takes. We are principally concerned with the data. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
Mike, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Someone asked me to help translate this tool, and I was shocked to find no source code. What did the author of the tool say when you asked him, before posting here? Does OSM have any guidelines about software that is hosted on the wiki? Can people just make software under any license and then put it on the wiki for free advertising ? OSM Composer is hosted by the author himself I believe. In another post you wrote that topo.openstreetmap.org cannot be freely mirrored. That is true insofar as that we are likely to ban your IP if you try to to create such a mirror due to the load on the server, much as you would be banned if you tried to mirror tile.openstreetmap.org. It has nothing to do with OSM Composer however. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:46 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Me too! Maybe someday we will have to make a librestreetmap fork of project with stricter licenses policies for the software and better policies for the wiki. Mike, I'm a long time Free Software advocate/writing and a member of the FSF (in that I pay dues). And as far as writing software is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly with you that software should be free, and given the choice between Free and non-free software, I encourage people to use the Free Software, and discourage people from writing non-free software. That said, as far as I know, no Free software project has ever put in its license that there's a requirement for data accessed via an API or via a data format be made available under any specific license requirements. In other words, Apache doesn't say that you must use Firefox, and OpenOffice.org doesn't say you must use OpenOffice, or Abiword, etc. I think that even the most ardent Free Software person would argue that these terms would be a net negative against the project. Free Software is about giving the users freedoms[1], but it's always been made clear that calls made at arms length and data exchange formats are not subject to the terms of the license. As for the sentiment in general, OpenStreetMap has two general definitions. The first is the most strict- it's that OpenStreetMap is the database, and just the database. The second is that OpenStreetMap is the database, the web site, the tools (Postgis, Mapnik, etc.). It's easy to see where the lines can be muddled. It's my understanding that the OSMF only produces Free Software, it also encourages the use of OSM to a larger audience, and that may mean non-Free software. That's okay. That's part of our ecosystem of partners. So long as the various organizations and individuals comply with the license, this is okay. Arguing for yet stricter license requirements seems silly when there are parts of our existing population which find the license too restrictive[2]. And I can tell you, as a Free Software supporter, that if there were a project which dictated terms of use on remote APIs or data exchange formats, I'd be pretty turned off myself. - Serge [1] Placing minimal restrictions when necessary to ensure those freedoms, such as in the GPL. [2] They are in favor of something more akin to Public Domain or CC0. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On 1 May 2010 18:56, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I would hope that every user of OpenStreetMap has the same 'morals' of wishing open-ness and freedom upon everyone else. Strangely, it also becomes emotive for some points. Motivations and morals are 2 completely different topics, even if morals are one form of motivation. Some people just want better maps and they don't care what software or form the data comes in. Others like RichardF would like a BSD/PD style license because they consider it more open than a GPL/CC-by-SA style license, even you don't think a BSD/PD license is suitable because then people wouldn't be forced to give back their changes, so who is more 'moral' or who is more 'open'? From quickly looking at the mentioned page, a quick search for 'license' reveals only one match, the line 'Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license'. This would lead one to believe that the content of the page (and the link to the installer for the app which the page is all about) are available under a free licence. Don't confuse content and code, how many pieces of software have you even seen released under a cc style license? I can see both points of this argument, but while James seems to be asking for consistency within OSM, everyone seems to be making excuses as to why there doesnt have to be consistency. We're not making excuses, we're sharing out point of view on a topic, and just because it differs you have to resort to emotive language to try and win the argument. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
Hi! On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 09:35:04AM +0100, Kai Krueger wrote: I can't speak about the specific case of OSM composer and how it is hosted on openstreetmap.de (Those servers were between sponsored afaik by a single commercial company, and not by the community, not that that should matter) Beeing one of the Admins for openstreetmap.de I can answer this. We do have a rule that all software developed or hosted on these servers has to be Open Source. I was not aware that OSM Composer was not and I have asked the author for clarification. I'll report back here when we have sorted this out. In my opinion this does not apply for the wiki. The wiki is a general informational ressource that can have information about lots of things that are not the core OSM project. If only Open Source software would be allowed there, we'd have to remove all mentionings of my OSM Inspector for instance. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: In another post you wrote that topo.openstreetmap.org cannot be freely mirrored. That is true insofar as that we are likely to ban your IP if you try to to create such a mirror due to the load on the server, much as you would be banned if you tried to mirror tile.openstreetmap.org. Of course, that is not the issue, my point was simple, it is just that by hosting non free software you are effectively limiting the users to make a copy of the site or use its contents. if it is practical or not is another issue. By freely mirrored, i mean you do not have the freedom to mirror it and use it under a creative commons or any other public use license. That is why the wikipedia commons does not want fair use material posted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use I am not advocating using up precious bandwidth or anything like that, and I don't want to start a big emotional debate. My only point is that, like sf.net we should not be hosting non free software on the osm site (s). thanks, mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
The reason why the source code is not open is explained at the bottom of the wiki page. The more questionable issue for me is that the wiki seems to be the main host of this closed product online documentation (or I didn't find where it is). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
I agree with you on many points, 1. Yes, of course the data should be free to be used however people want. (in accordance with the restrictions on derived works). There can be no coupling of data and software. that would be evil. There should be no GPLED wire formats or the like. 2. The Software should be free, and I have no problems with the mix of licenses that I see in OSM. It is fine that some people want to use different licenses, and everyone has their own reasons. Ideally you should be able to use the software for propriety data and creative commons data. But there is also another aspect, and that is the websites and the policies of usage of them. My idea is pretty simple, if you want to have propriety software, please host it somewhere else. If you cannot host it on any of the free software hosting sites because you want to have a restrictive license, then please host it on a normal site, but you will have to pay for bandwidth or have some type of advertising etc. There are many webpages for hosting your propriety data and files. It is however confusing to see propriety software being hosted on some site with a name like *.openstreetmap.* . thanks, mike On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:46 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Me too! Maybe someday we will have to make a librestreetmap fork of project with stricter licenses policies for the software and better policies for the wiki. Mike, I'm a long time Free Software advocate/writing and a member of the FSF (in that I pay dues). And as far as writing software is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly with you that software should be free, and given the choice between Free and non-free software, I encourage people to use the Free Software, and discourage people from writing non-free software. That said, as far as I know, no Free software project has ever put in its license that there's a requirement for data accessed via an API or via a data format be made available under any specific license requirements. In other words, Apache doesn't say that you must use Firefox, and OpenOffice.org doesn't say you must use OpenOffice, or Abiword, etc. I think that even the most ardent Free Software person would argue that these terms would be a net negative against the project. Free Software is about giving the users freedoms[1], but it's always been made clear that calls made at arms length and data exchange formats are not subject to the terms of the license. As for the sentiment in general, OpenStreetMap has two general definitions. The first is the most strict- it's that OpenStreetMap is the database, and just the database. The second is that OpenStreetMap is the database, the web site, the tools (Postgis, Mapnik, etc.). It's easy to see where the lines can be muddled. It's my understanding that the OSMF only produces Free Software, it also encourages the use of OSM to a larger audience, and that may mean non-Free software. That's okay. That's part of our ecosystem of partners. So long as the various organizations and individuals comply with the license, this is okay. Arguing for yet stricter license requirements seems silly when there are parts of our existing population which find the license too restrictive[2]. And I can tell you, as a Free Software supporter, that if there were a project which dictated terms of use on remote APIs or data exchange formats, I'd be pretty turned off myself. - Serge [1] Placing minimal restrictions when necessary to ensure those freedoms, such as in the GPL. [2] They are in favor of something more akin to Public Domain or CC0. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On 1 May 2010 20:32, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: My idea is pretty simple, if you want to have propriety software, please host it somewhere else. If you cannot host it on any of the free software hosting sites because you want to have a restrictive license, then please host it on a normal site, but you will have to pay for bandwidth or have some type of advertising etc. There are many webpages for hosting your propriety data and files. It is however confusing to see propriety software being hosted on some site with a name like *.openstreetmap.* . You pointed out the software was free of charge for non-commercial use, was there also a payment option somewhere, other wise open is pointless since the software is still free of charge for the end user. closed source isn't the same as commercial software being hosted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
hi, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Of course, that is not the issue, my point was simple, it is just that by hosting non free software you are effectively limiting the users to make a copy of the site or use its contents. if it is practical or not is another issue. By freely mirrored, i mean you do not have the freedom to mirror it and use it under a creative commons or any other public use license. The topo map consists of three layers, two are OSM derived and CC-BY-SA, one (hillshading) is derived from NC data and thus under a NC license. You can use all these layers according to their respective licenses. If the NC license of the hillshade part is not good enough for you, then you are free, for example, to create your own hillshading layer derived from SRTM data and use that instead of the CIAT-derived hillshade layer used in the topo map, and combine that with the CC-BY-SA layers from the topo map. Still, this has nothing to do with the license under which the author decided to publish OSM Composer. My only point is that, like sf.net we should not be hosting non free software on the osm site (s). We have a policy on the FOSSGIS servers (the ones behind openstreetmap.de) that says we're not hosting non-free software. If you can point me to software being hosted on openstreetmap.de which is non-free then it will be removed. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a policy on the FOSSGIS servers (the ones behind openstreetmap.de) that says we're not hosting non-free software. If you can point me to software being hosted on openstreetmap.de which is non-free then it will be removed. I was talking about this software : http://topo.openstreetmap.de/map_composer_082.zip thanks, mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On 1 May 2010 20:38, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a policy on the FOSSGIS servers (the ones behind openstreetmap.de) that says we're not hosting non-free software. If you can point me to software being hosted on openstreetmap.de which is non-free then it will be removed. non-free or non-floss? I've no idea about the authors motives but he may have offered it free for personal use because he didn't want companies using it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On 1 May 2010 07:30, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Also, it is being hosted on openstreetmap.de, I am going to start to decompile it and recreate the java code from the class files. I wonder if they will sue me. I don't see any license agreement that says I cannot do it. While I don't think it's a good thing, and am not a lawyer, afaik decompilation is on of the rights that copyright takes away by default (if no license is given), in some countries -- except if it's done for interoperability in which case both us and eu allow it explicitly. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
Yes, my point was a bit to much, of course I wont decompile and publish the source. but the essence of my question is, without a license, what is the terms of usage of such a software? It is unclear. That is what is worrying me. mike On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 May 2010 07:30, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Also, it is being hosted on openstreetmap.de, I am going to start to decompile it and recreate the java code from the class files. I wonder if they will sue me. I don't see any license agreement that says I cannot do it. While I don't think it's a good thing, and am not a lawyer, afaik decompilation is on of the rights that copyright takes away by default (if no license is given), in some countries -- except if it's done for interoperability in which case both us and eu allow it explicitly. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Yes, my point was a bit to much, of course I wont decompile and publish the source. but the essence of my question is, without a license, what is the terms of usage of such a software? It is unclear. That is what is worrying me. mike It would be covered by copyright automatically.[1] You would have no additional rights unless they are explicitly granted. What was the response when you asked the author? Perhaps they seek another developer / contributor and would consider the GPL? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
Also, it is being hosted on openstreetmap.de, I am going to start to decompile it and recreate the java code from the class files. I wonder if they will sue me. I don't see any license agreement that says I cannot do it. mike On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:22 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi there, just a question, freeware for non commercial usage / non open source being promoted on the osm wiki? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OSM_Composer Is this what we want ? is there any policy on that? I know we have strict policies on map data, but what about wikiusage and usage of the resources of the osm. It sends a bad message to have non free software being promoted our wiki. Someone asked me to help translate this tool, and I was shocked to find no source code. Does OSM have any guidelines about software that is hosted on the wiki? Can people just make software under any license and then put it on the wiki for free advertising ? Can I advertise anything I want on the wiki? I know that flossk our group in Kosovo has guidelines on non free software and we dont allow people to use our conference or donated resources to promote non-free software, because our mission is to promote software freedom and data freedom, not just data freedom. Autotranslate from the wikipage : Why is not Open Source Composer? Composer shares code and base libraries with a few other programs I've written over time and used by various organizations. First, these interfaces must always remain backward compatible, on the other hand, these older users' rights and would not part with an opening to the code agree. Additionally, for me, especially if a program usable for the (hobby) is the user. And it takes a lot more with proper documentation, as the source code with which you can usually start anyway not in the least. Well, lets see the source code that he parts he can publish and we can rewrite the parts that are not available. I think it would make more sense to have the app being open and have 1-2 libs that are not and should be replaced as closed libs. In any case, we could work on the translation. Also, proper documentation is the source, no? I mean want more proper documentation can you get except source code that works? you can debug it. thanks, mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?
On 1 May 2010 15:22, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: It sends a bad message to have non free software being promoted our wiki. Companies offering commercial services are also on the wiki, OSM's primary goal is freely available data, there is no demand for only open source software or services. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
