Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Wow, you infer a lot from my four word sentence. Do you have any evidence to back any of it up? You mean other than the message you affirmed pretty strongly? Maybe it's a difference between Australian English and British English, but I'd think those four words in the context that you uttered them carry exactly the same meaning as the message you affirmed. Said message was dismissive of project forks, the reasons for them, the people who start them, and the importance of licences that people choose to make contributions available under. It was specifically dismissive of people with agendas which has become a commonly used passive-aggressive label (especially on this list) for those who voice concerns. So I don't think I inferred much at all, I think instead you were quite explicit. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Thanks for the responses. So it seems there will be some fragmentation. Some are moving to fosm, some are moving elsewhere, some are staying with OSM, some have stopped actively contributing and are on hold... I wrote this mail for two reasons, to get a sense of where local contributors stand, but also to raise some awareness for anyone with their head still in the sand who may have been ignoring the issue or holding out for everything to magically fix itself. For those whom will be staying with OSM, I still value your contributions; fosm tries to merge your changes in. In the future as the branches become feather apart it may prove more difficulty (i.e. more duplicated work), but I guess we'll have to deal with that as it comes. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork When you have exhausted all other options. I believe we have exhausted all other options. there have been multitudes of debate to try to resolve the issue mostly going nowhere. Forks are not a guaranteed success. They may have good reasons, ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and for OSM it's a powerful one. As an example everyone has heard of MySQL, but what about Maria? Mysql - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql#Forks_of_MySQL I don't see this as a problem. OSM is much more than just the database (it's the schema, the reputation, the software and tools, the API/data format), and we are just replacing the database contents. The more mainstream, well known and used OSM as a whole project becomes, the better off and OSM database forks will be because the shared parts will improve for both of us. Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? I mention fosm because it is the only CC-BY-SA fork I am aware of. A CC-BY-SA fork is a defensive action, preserving the current state. Any other forks are pro-actively changing the status quo. Such forks can happen any time and are independent of the current change of terms of OSM. I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways of keeping or replacing the data in OSM. A satisfactory local example where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However on this list there was little rejoicing, there was a lot of picking over the actual wording of their offer; looking at the legal-eze, hairsplitting terminology or imagined loopholes in order to justify the fork projects existence. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:06 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 7 July 2011 07:54, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a Actually it's potentially trivial to use CC-by-SA data, since anyone that supplied contributions under cc-by-sa are still in the database and you only have to modify previous data to then have data derived from cc-by-sa Yes, if you modified or built upon any data already in OSM. The data is CC-BY-SA, hence your modifications must be CC-BY-SA also, unless of course you know the data to be public domain, or have obtained it under a different license elsewhere. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: 3) Ive made a couple of edits, but really am feeling like theres so much duplicated work now that its almost just not worth bothering The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. The worst case for a collision is an edit in OSM that conflicts with an earlier edit made to the same element in the fosm database. In this case we place the OSM edit in a conflict log and preserve the fosm edit. Other kinds of conflict include the same feature being added to both OSM and fosm independently. This will result in the feature being duplicated in fosm, but it's easy to manually delete such artifacts when they are noticed, retaining whichever is the best one. My largest concern is with piecemeal replacement of non-ODbL licensed content in OSM with inferior quality tracing. This will appear as legitimate edits to the fosm sync process and will result in fosm being degraded needlessly. We've talked about mechanisms for watching areas where this might happen and for users who might be doing this. We can revert such edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing we notice that it has happened. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. Steve On 7/7/2011 7:01 AM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org http://fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org http://fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. The worst case for a collision is an edit in OSM that conflicts with an earlier edit made to the same element in the fosm database. In this case we place the OSM edit in a conflict log and preserve the fosm edit. Other kinds of conflict include the same feature being added to both OSM and fosm independently. This will result in the feature being duplicated in fosm, but it's easy to manually delete such artifacts when they are noticed, retaining whichever is the best one. My largest concern is with piecemeal replacement of non-ODbL licensed content in OSM with inferior quality tracing. This will appear as legitimate edits to the fosm sync process and will result in fosm being degraded needlessly. We've talked about mechanisms for watching areas where this might happen and for users who might be doing this. We can revert such edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing we notice that it has happened. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. You seem worried, Steve. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/7/2011 7:15 AM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. You seem worried, Steve. You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example as the checks and balances of normal community communication are harder because of the timezone differences and costs of flying. Essentially, people in Australia don't get to hear from the rest of us on the phone or in the pub and we let you spam the lists for a long time. So to an outsider it can look like you're this rational guy who used to be on the board and so on. I've heard about the various conspiracy theories you've been peddling personally off-list too. It's hard to fix that, however I am resourceful. The first step is to meet your clownmails message-for-message so you don't automatically have the loudest voice. By pointing out the simple facts and having you talk past them and get to the real issues (you want to rile people like me up, make us fret and worry) it is now clear to a rational observer what the intentions are. I think your nightmare scenario is that I fly to Australia and sit in the pub and discuss the real reasons you're so upset. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Give me that, and you'll have me back. :-) P.S. Don't feed the trolls. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the license or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that every single contributor has to accept again. Either way there will be detractors. The LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton of time making that judgement and whatever they chose it would be imperfect. I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme of do whatever nearmap says (not that they ever made demands to my knowledge) as it would be short sighted to deflect the project for one company. If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely happy giving imagery derivation rights under the future direction outlined above. So, I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) given Bing's enlightened example rather than bowing to their short-term goals. Even Ordnance Survey have been great to work with through these issues. Even OS! So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7 July 2011 15:09, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. Some background... 80n was an original founding member of the OSM Foundation (OSMF). 80n failed to be re-elected to the OSMF board in 2009 [1]. 80n and SteveC fell out awhile back... FOSM is hosted on server resources provided for running OpenStreetMap XAPI [2], all code is written by 80n (or his employees) in GT.M / MUMPS Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi-Programming System (not a fork of the OSM.org codebase as has been claimed). The source code is not (yet) available. After approaching 1 year of operation FOSM has had ~153 account signups. [3] 1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09 2: UC San Diego hosted server provided by Telascience.org and OSGeo. 3: http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork/msg/730068be892ea034 Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 00:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. He said he wanted to keep using Nearmap, Nearmap have said you can't... What clarification did you get from OS? I've not see anything definite posted... Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For What does free mean? What does open mean? all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. What specifically does CC need to change in their current licenses to be more useful? It's my understanding that ODBL doesn't require produced work be attributed which makes all CC licenses (except CC0) incompatible as you would be breaking the chain of attribution. We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the license or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that every single contributor has to accept again. Either way there will be detractors. The LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton of time making that judgement and whatever they chose it would be imperfect. The problem isn't just the new license or the CTs for that matter, it's how this were carried out, how our concerns were dismissed out of hand. I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme of do whatever nearmap says (not that they ever made demands to my knowledge) as it would be short sighted to deflect the project for one company. Nearmap was merely a sign of bigger issues and problems that the LWG or anyone else pushing for change didn't deal with properly and still haven't otherwise you wouldn't be trying to claim to be the victim here. If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely happy giving imagery derivation rights under the future direction outlined above. So, I Some doubt your claims since Bing hasn't official published anything on one of their websites, others are worried the use of Bing imagery will cause grief for OSM-F later. believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) given Bing's enlightened example rather than bowing to their short-term goals. Even Ordnance Survey have been great to work with through these issues. Even OS! So things are great as long as you get your way? So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. They didn't decide to change things, you did so at least man up and take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to blame others. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 08/07/11 00:01, 80n wrote: The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org http://fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org http://fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. I opened a new OSM account (for new contributions) when it became clear that the data I'd already entered was in danger of being deleted. As it transpired, I was able to accept the new conditions for my earlier data thanks to Nearmap's resolution of the sticking point. What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get redirected to http://fosm.org/poly/tah.html#2.00/34.4/-5.9 which is a blank screen for me. My other two Linux browsers (Arora and Konqueror) come up with a completely blank home page at http://fosm.org/ When I boot into Windows XP, neither Explorer nor Firefox fare any better. What do I have to do to see an fosm map? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2 Although I'm still working to get expired tiles re-rendered in near real time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:11 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someone sets up a business to donate goods to your project, to then turn around and say 'unless you change your business model, we dont want anything to do with you anymore'. With the amount of effort that has been gone to to secure the data used in Australia to be suitable for OSM, only to have some UK mob make changes to spit in the face of all our donors, its very little wonder why the masses here have little respect for those who cause trouble after we'd gone to such lengths to ask everyone to be compatible with OSM. David On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Hi John, At low zoom I see lots of broken tiles. I was looking at Hobart. Any Ideas? Neal - Original Message - From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com To: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, 8 July, 2011 6:53:00 AM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2 Although I'm still working to get expired tiles re-rendered in near real time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
I wonder if people would mind keeping their unconstructive comments for some other medium than this list. On Jul 8, 2011 9:24 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someone sets up a business to donate goods to your project, to then turn around and say 'unless you change your business model, we dont want anything to do with you anymore'. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively contributing to the fosm database. I am interested to hear what other active Australian OSM contributors will be doing now. I'm pretty much contributing to OSM as I always have. I don't have much interest in a fringe fork populated mainly by the disgruntled. It reminds me a bit of Citizendium - the fork of Wikipedia you've probably never heard of. Of course, my continuing with OSM is not a vote of confidence in the licence chance process - I really resent many parts of the way it's been handled, particularly Frederik Ramm's dismissive attitude. I really wish OSM had someone of Jimmy Wales' calibre as a community leader. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. As I said in an email to you, I disagree with the concept of a database right, or using contract law to emulate it, which has no precedent in Australia. Also, I dislike contributor agreements in free software projects, and the CTs are a similar concept. They restrict the use of data from governments and other third parties. Now, there is an argument over whether that data should be kept separate as layers, but I haven't seen that discussed at all. Finally, as I read it the Nearmap grant doesn't let me relicense my existing CC-BY-SA contributions as ODbL as I hadn't signed the CT when I made them. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. Disclosure: I am a shareholder; I bought shares partly because they used OSM for their maps. So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. However, due to the CT governments have to contribute their data directly rather than letting even more agile citizens do it for them. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 6 July 2011 21:29, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: and also people who ticked the CTs who have used CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources in the past who may want to keep this data and continue using these sources in the future. Indeed. Number 9 on the list is QldProtectedAreashttp://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas, which I'd assume is an account created specifically to upload CC-BY data, is marked as having accepted the CTs. So, active Australian OSM contributors, are you staying with the OSM db? If so how are you going to do edits going forward, because any CC-BY-SA derived data you add may be removed if OSM abandons CC-BY-SA at some point in the future (or may even be conflicting with your agreed CTs now...). Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you efforts on hold at the moment. I've not been mapping very much recently, mostly waiting to see how the whole things plays out (apart from a few posts here and on legal-talk). -- James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 19:10, James Andrewartha tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. As I said in an email to you, I disagree with the concept of a database right, or using contract law to emulate it, which has no precedent in Australia. Also, I dislike contributor agreements in free software projects, and the CTs are a similar concept. They restrict the use of data from governments and other third parties. Now, there is an argument over whether that data should be kept separate as layers, but I haven't seen that discussed at all. Finally, as I read it the Nearmap grant doesn't let me relicense my existing CC-BY-SA contributions as ODbL as I hadn't signed the CT when I made them. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. Disclosure: I am a shareholder; I bought shares partly because they used OSM for their maps. So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. However, due to the CT governments have to contribute their data directly rather than letting even more agile citizens do it for them. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at What about the 50 odd percent of people that haven't responded? I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. So you're planning to hold onto as much data as possible regardless of copyright laws and respecting content authors wishes? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. There are more countries without sui generis database rights laws than with it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at From what I've read on ML posts, and from what was reported about the last SotM meeting (I wasn't there), the vast majority of people don't care and would be happy with the status quo, would be happy with CTs+OdBL, and quite a decent fraction would be happy with PD too. I'm not saying that the anti-ODbL group is larger than the pro-ODbL one, but that most people are neutral and will go with whatever happens. and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. I don't really see how a group of people complaining about things in the CTs or ODbL (some of which are moral objections, some are technical objection) is really that different from a group of people complaining that CC-BY-SA isn't suitable. I think about all we can say is that not everyone agrees, and people also have different opinions on how many people are in each camp. -- James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. That is all this is predicated upon, lawyers say that cc doesn't work for data. If they didn't say that then we would never have gone down this road. I guess for your second paragraph - there are objections to the CTs but we are at a point where I believe there would be objections to however the CTs turned out. They're as reasonable a balance as we can make, I think. The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. Of course, in theory its a simple to change to switch from our current cc to the future one, but then we have this big gap where it doesn't apply. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:41, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at From what I've read on ML posts, and from what was reported about the last SotM meeting (I wasn't there), the vast majority of people don't care and would be happy with the status quo, would be happy with CTs+OdBL, and quite a decent fraction would be happy with PD too. I'm not saying that the anti-ODbL group is larger than the pro-ODbL one, but that most people are neutral and will go with whatever happens. and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. I don't really see how a group of people complaining about things in the CTs or ODbL (some of which are moral objections, some are technical objection) is really that different from a group of people complaining that CC-BY-SA isn't suitable. I think about all we can say is that not everyone agrees, and people also have different opinions on how many people are in each camp. -- James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
What you say mike is mostly reasonable apart from the control bit. It's a democratically elected nonprofit, so it's hard to cast that as a dictatorship. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:47, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? My reasons for helping out are simple, because there are more chances to develop software if there is a not a monolithic database. There are more possibilities for OSM if everything is not in the control of a few people. The only way to be able to negotiate is to be in a position to negotiate, so being able to fork is an important part in not having to fork. Already we have developed new and innovative solutions and more. I am also willing to work with osm as much as possible. A fork does not have to be anything bad, and to be honest I see the new license as a fork, a forced one. what we are doing is just setting up the tools and resources for people to continue, and these tools and technologies are needed by everyone and everyone will benefit. mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. It's a false assumption, the only way it would be geo factual data is if you copied 1:1 from raster imagery, making maps is a creative enterprise, regardless if it's stored in a database or not, just like wikipedia content is copyrightable even though it's stored in a database. I believe CC has since changed their stance, possibly due to all the discussion over it. The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. Of course, in theory its a simple to change to switch from our current cc to the future one, but then we have this big gap where it doesn't apply. AFAIK all you have to do is use a european ported license to cover database rights and there is no issue with upgrades since all CC licenses I've read include an upgrade clause. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. That is all this is predicated upon, lawyers say that cc doesn't work for data. Lawyers also say that cc does work for data. You can generally find a lawyer who will say just about anything. The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. CC 2 and CC 3 are already applicable to data. If what you mean is that you're hoping that CC 4 is going to try to override the laws of jurisdictions which says that facts can't be owned, well, that ain't gonna happen. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's hard to say near map have been unreasonable, just that they were not quite as happy as all our other contributors of similar data. As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get involved or run for election. Its certainly difficult to integrate the eu, us and au communities when the timezones are so hard to overlap. I am all ears on how we could fix that. It would be wonderful if someone from au could make it to SOTM. In fact they are running a video competition to pay for the costs of someone to attend. Lastly, I'll say that I fell out with the last person to ask for my loyalty rather than my integrity or honesty. There is a big distinction. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 16:24, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:11 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someone sets up a business to donate goods to your project, to then turn around and say 'unless you change your business model, we dont want anything to do with you anymore'. With the amount of effort that has been gone to to secure the data used in Australia to be suitable for OSM, only to have some UK mob make changes to spit in the face of all our donors, its very little wonder why the masses here have little respect for those who cause trouble after we'd gone to such lengths to ask everyone to be compatible with OSM. David On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
The control seems to be good, but I have no personal say in it. The new license maybe good, but I dont want to accept it if I dont understand it 100%. With the new distributed system we are building I can : 1. Host my own maps without begging or asking for permissions. 2. Commit my own code to my own repositories 3. Own my own edits without having them deleted by someone for some reason 4. Develop new tools that work with osm that everyone can use and benefit from. The more forks there are, the more possibilities are there for software developers. Kinda like arms dealers. So as long as there is war and conflict, you will need weapons (and maps). As long as there is conflict in the OSM, you will need more software developers, At least my work seems to be more appreciated in the forks. Also I am still working on my new kestrel distributed rendering system, and when that has enough cpus we will be able to do alot more than osm has ever done, because we will have a flexible and reusable decentralized processing system. That is the biggest problem with mindset of the people who are controlling osm, the mindset monolithic and too over controlled. We need to change the mindset to distributed and federated. mike On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:56 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: What you say mike is mostly reasonable apart from the control bit. It's a democratically elected nonprofit, so it's hard to cast that as a dictatorship. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:47, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? My reasons for helping out are simple, because there are more chances to develop software if there is a not a monolithic database. There are more possibilities for OSM if everything is not in the control of a few people. The only way to be able to negotiate is to be in a position to negotiate, so being able to fork is an important part in not having to fork. Already we have developed new and innovative solutions and more. I am also willing to work with osm as much as possible. A fork does not have to be anything bad, and to be honest I see the new license as a fork, a forced one. what we are doing is just setting up the tools and resources for people to continue, and these tools and technologies are needed by everyone and everyone will benefit. mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's hard to say near map have been unreasonable, just that they were not quite as happy as all our other contributors of similar data. Was the OS given all pertinent facts about ODBL and how it doesn't require a minimum level of attribution on produced works? AFAIK OS requires attribution and ODBL doesn't require it down stream. This is a big show stopped for most government agencies I've heard about in Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get involved or run for election. Is it true that you had to do a lot of rule fiddling so you didn't have to retire to give others a chance on the board? Its certainly difficult to integrate the eu, us and au communities when the timezones are so hard to overlap. I am all ears on how we could fix that. It would be wonderful if someone from au could make it to SOTM. In fact they are running a video competition to pay for the costs of someone to attend. Especially so when you don't bother to listen to any feed back. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Nathan I've been mapping farm fences etc in the Yass, NSW area, where the Bing resolution is high enough to do so Hi Nathan, Do you live near Yass? If so can you throw any light on the two or three streets that don't have street signs on them? I've tried many times to find names for the road next to the showground (Google has it as O'Connell Road). Also the roads near the river (maybe Warrambalulah and Riley)? Oh - and to Andrew - I intend to stay with the OSM project and will be mapping madly again in Australia just as soon as all our data is compliant. Till then I'm practicing my arm-chair mapping techniques overseas. Hey - it's fun also, Cheers Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? I am quite happy with my country's laws, which don't include database right, and don't want to promote such a concept. What do you mean by throw everything away? Who is throwing what away? James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM, James Andrewartha tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? I am quite happy with my country's laws, which don't include database right, and don't want to promote such a concept. What do you mean by throw everything away? Who is throwing what away? OSMF is throwing away the data of people who don't relicense under ODbL. They're doing this because they don't like the laws of countries like Australia and the US. That must be what he means :). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
