Re: [talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits
Andrew Harvey wrote: > Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether > that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from > the OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags. With the best will in the world, that's not going to happen. I can point you to a well-known bike routing app that has 75+ employees, was backed by a government funding office to the tune of seven figures, and has an install base of millions, and yet it still gets path access across the UK very very wrong because (basically) it applies German defaults. So the idea that every single router is going to write state-specific processing is unrealistic, I'm afraid, whatever you think _should_ happen. (Personally I do have a whole bunch of country, state and even county-specific adaptions for cycle.travel's routing, but I'm very aware that I'm the outlier. And I've never even heard of "def:*" tags.) Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Queensland railway stations
Hi folks, There appear to be a _lot_ of bogus rail stations on the map in Queensland: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-21.0650/148.8397=T https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-23.5706/150.1838=T I think these are historic halts that haven't had service for many years but have mistakenly been added. They mostly seem to have been mapped by TheOldMiner who hasn't been active for four years. Any rail enthusiasts or Queenslanders on this list who fancy cleaning them up? cheers Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW
Andrew Harvey , wrote: > For these "routes" though there is no clear A to B, there will be short > segments which are obivously part of a route because there are arrows > directing cyclists, but sometimes these are just short segments to the next > intersection so it's unclear where the route goes from and to, hence why > someone has resorted to just dumping all the segments into one route relation. Exactly, so it’s not an A-B “route”, it’s a network, and should be in a network relation rather than a route relation. The other alternative is to just put lcn=yes on the way (and indeed that’s done in lots of other places). cycle.travel gives a small uplift to ways tagged with that. Richard cycle.travel ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW
On 25 Apr 2020, 09:53 +0100, Andrew Harvey , wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 18:49, Richard Fairhurst > > wrote: > > > Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end. > > > Not > > > for networks. If you want to put them all in a single relation, then do it > > > with type=network or something: > > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network > > > > Do you have an example of that for cycle networks? I've seen it in the US a few times - can't remember where offhand. Ultimately there isn't really a whole lot of point - if you want all the routes in Cammeray, just get a bounding box for Cammeray and find the cycle routes within it. OSM is a spatial database after all. But people do like categorising things! Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW
Tom Brennan wrote: > However, if I go over to Cammeray, someone has added all of the ways > to a single relation (named Cammeray Local Routes, tagged with > lcn=yes and network=lcn). Yeah, please don't do that. :) Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end. Not for networks. If you want to put them all in a single relation, then do it with type=network or something: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network cheers Richard cycle.travel -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion K: Evaluation of ACT paths audit 2012 and the OSM ACT dataset
This is getting ridiculous. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Road name abbreviation exception?
Warin wrote: > I expand these out to Saint. I think that is correct in the English > language. It is expressly _incorrect_ in British English and if this were a UK discussion you would be asked to put them back to St. I can't speak for Australian English but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19609/saint-or-st-is-there-an-official-osm-policy Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Andrew Laughton wrote: Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all. Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ? Yes. The summary (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/) says: Attribute: You must attribute any public use of the database, or works produced from the database, in the manner specified in the ODbL. For any use or redistribution of the database, or works produced from it, you must make clear to others the license of the database and keep intact any notices on the original database. And the full licence says: 4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must: [...] c. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this License. 4.3 [...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/ODbL-data-gov-au-permission-granted-tp6824368p6995976.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
[crosspost removed] 80n wrote: Most importantly it allows subsequent copies of the produced work to be made with no attribution. No, it doesn't. An attribution statement without a downstream requirement is not reasonably calculated. This has been gone over ad nauseam in legal-talk. Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we were
simply told 'bad luck youre only a tiny percentage of the data'.
Part of the problem that has arisen is that our data would be affected
more than most by the removal of CCBYSA imported data. Some people
looked at this as simply a data loss in a remote part of the world, the
same way most of us wouldnt care if a big import from Africa was due to
be removed for the same reason.
The OSMF has always accepted that some users wont accept the licence
(whether on principle or because of the sources they wish use) and this
loss of mappers will be acceptable for the future progression of OSM.
From the OSMF perspective, they feel this is a required step to move
on. From the Aussie perspective, it feels like its acceptable to lose
our contributions, or at least easier to remove them than to work to
resolve any minor attribution issues that we ('we' meaning a few
users knowledgable about the licence) have raised.
Those last two paragraphs are a fair summary, certainly.
I think OSMF (and I'm not part of OSMF, of course) would disagree with
your bad luck characterisation, and would say that other parts of the
world have engaged with the process (so we now have an agreement with
Ordnance Survey, for example) whereas Australia hasn't.
But that's water under the bridge. The current discussion has shown that
the rift between the two is now too strong. I think the priority now is
to make sure that each project can continue without adversely affecting
the other.
[...]
You are covering one point of the equation, the contributors. What
about the map users? Sure, its great to have a massive network of
contributors, but if the data being contributed isnt being used or isnt
complete enough to be used, then you'll lose the masses. The masses
dont want to add nodes and new roads, they want to replace garmin maps
with OSM maps, so they can drive for their job or their holiday. They
dont care about what licence is on the maps, they just want the most
complete maps they can get. If that means a choice of OSM or OSM - 52%
who in their right mind would choose the smaller dataset?
Absolutely - so if OSM doesn't attract enough new contributors
post-changeover, FOSM becomes the dominant map for Australia (or
CommonMap, or...). I don't have a problem with that at all.
But also: Australia has a great advantage. You're both a whole continent
and an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use
FOSM for Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine
the two into one dataset.
Because you can just cut out Australia and place it in a new database
with no linkage, it can be a Collective Database, not a Derivative
Database - so they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously
works with ODbL (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because
CC is unclear for data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after
all, there are CC-licensed Wikipedia pages which contain non-CC-licensed
photographs, as Collective Works).
So a data user could work from planet-combined.osm, which contains OSM
rest-of-the-world and FOSM Australia. Such a file could legally be
distributed by a mirror site as a Collective Database/Work. Best of both
worlds for data users.
Richard
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are Well if you attempt to use data I've created under any license other than cc-by-sa I'd be happy to to file an injunction to finally answer how much copyright extends to map content creation. It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA. In Australian legal terms, the two databases are underlying works and so retain their own rights. The two together are a compilation (albeit one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content licences used: the Collective Work permission of CC-BY-SA and the Collective Database permission of ODbL. Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA. In Australian legal terms, the two databases are underlying works and so retain their own rights. The two together are a compilation (albeit one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content licences used: the Collective Work permission of CC-BY-SA and the Collective Database permission of ODbL. It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself, and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause on produced works. There is no need to be compatible: that's the entire point of the Collective Work provision. It allows you to combine two separate and independent works with different licences. In the words of CC-BY-SA, this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License (4a). Rather than me restating the same thing 8972352345 times, I suggest that, before you do file an injunction, you consult a lawyer who will tell you the same thing I have just told you. Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote: Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form. I am sure, yes. You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases: osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA). As it happens, osm-without-australia.osm is a Derivative Database of planet.osm, and fosm-australia-only.osm is a Derivative Work of planet.fosm. But that's immaterial - planet.osm is probably a Derivative of some other databases, too. It being a Derivative doesn't restrict your rights under ODbL. Once you have the Derivative Database, you are free to use it under the full provisions of ODbL, and that includes doing whatever you like with an unmodified version of it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570839.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote: Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued. No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work (CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work. Derivatives have to be licensed under the licence of the original. Therefore, they have all the freedoms afforded by that licence. Therefore, they can be incorporated into Collective Works. I don't think this would work for most countries. You couldn't usefully make a Collective Work from CC-Germany and ODbL-France, for example, because you'd want cross-border routing and that would mean the two databases are no longer separate and independent. But Australia is an island, intire of itself, so the issue doesn't arise. It doesn't even have a Channel Tunnel to worry about. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570979.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote: Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a derivative database Which you are doing, as part of a Collective Database. Incorporating a Derivative Database into a Collective Database does not absolve you of ODbL's requirements, or remove its freedoms, for the Derivative portion. (4.5a: this License still applies to this Database or a Derivative Database as a part of the Collective Database.) Irrespective of the point above, my reading of the terms would not break clause 4.8. The derivative database would be offered under ODbL, and you would still have to comply with all the requirements of the ODbL which relate to derivative databases. What is broken? You have broken 3.1c/d/e: the freedom to offer an ODbL-licensed database within a Collective Database. Exactly how to you come to the conclusion that unmodified does not mean unmodified , but means independent? I don't, but evidently I have a different understanding of unmodified to you. How do you come to the conclusion that on the same terms and conditions as this License means ...except for the one about Collective Databases? Clearly you and I are not going to agree on this and it's beginning to get snarky rather than informative, so let's leave it there. If you wish to sue anyone for inclusion of your ODbL-licensed content in a Collective Database then I recommend you talk to a lawyer first. Otherwise it's largely immaterial. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6571861.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Going separate ways
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate aren't ever going to be reconciled. It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at any of the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to ODbL+CT in the way that other countries have. To take the count from odbl.de of nodes last edited by users who have accepted (which gives a rough summary of recent activity): Germany 90.1% Great Britain 89.1% France 96.8% North America 96.4% Russia 97.2% Australia 48.4% That's pretty stark. Steve and Sam might have between them put their finger on why it's different (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-July/008268.html). I'm sure personalities also have something to do with it, as they do with any open source project. Regardless, it's unquestionable that it _is_ different in .au. So, I think, we need to get away from this idea that a fork is a bad thing. It isn't. There are two divergent communities, and it doesn't do either side any good to try and hold them together when they're so opposed. FOSM appears to be slowly becoming established, both technically and as a brand, and that's good. Benefiting from all the OSM code and ecosystem, plus the free gov.au data, is a pretty good headstart for a new forked project and I'd be amazed if it couldn't succeed given that. So please, let's stop hitting each other over the head with this. OSM can exist with ODbL, FOSM can exist with CC-BY-SA; people will choose which one to contribute to (or, indeed, both). OSM people can leave FOSM people alone without badgering them to agree; FOSM people can leave OSM people alone without criticism of the path they've chosen. OSM people needn't invade the FOSM mailing lists and vice versa. Let's concentrate on making a success of our own project, not on doing the other one down. cheers Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: Germany 90.1% Great Britain 89.1% France 96.8% North America 96.4% Russia 97.2% Australia 48.4% You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate, nor did you comment on the fact that several import accounts of large amounts of data are included in those numbers. Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've ever had in Britain is a few counties' worth of bus-stops! But this is rather the point, isn't it? No matter what point I might make, you're going to read the From: line, see that it's from one of the ODbL guys, and argue against it. And yes, I'm sure some of us are guilty of that too. The two sides are irreconcilable. There really isn't any need to keep sniping back and forth like this. Can we not just agree to differ: you go forward with FOSM-CC, we go forward with OSM-ODbL, and people contribute to whichever project they prefer? Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've ever had in Britain is a few counties' worth of bus-stops! It was my understanding people were importing OS data into GB? Not importing as such, no. Tracing, generally, which means there aren't any single big import accounts. The UK is by and large sufficiently well-mapped that imports of roads are impractical: you'd have to do so much correlation with existing data that it's easier to work manually from the off. A few people have played around with small-scale imports of streams/rivers but it's pretty piecemeal - I've not seen a single import in the areas where I map, other than the NaPTAN bus stops. No matter what point I might make, you're going to read the From: line, see that it's from one of the ODbL guys, and argue against it. And yes, I'm sure some of us are guilty of that too. This is one of the points most people have continued to miss time and time again no matter how often I've said it, it's the methods being employed to try and get people to change is what I hate the most, lying by omission is very common, people aren't being given all the pertinent facts on the matter to make an actual judgment. I've spoken to one person since they've agreed and gave some of the cons and they were upset that they weren't informed better about the situation, they felt some what cheated how they were corralled into accepting, others have made similar comments in the last few days about their own experiences. Ok. That's your opinion, and you are of course perfectly entitled to it; others will have a different opinion and will argue vehemently that they're not lying by omission; and so on. But do you not see that this isn't getting us anywhere, but merely poisoning the well? If FOSM succeeds then it won't be by denigrating OSM. Likewise, OSM won't succeed by pretending FOSM doesn't exist. I seriously think that the particular circumstances of Australia mean that you have a chance to make a CC fork _the_ dominant open map of the continent, if it's done right. But as several people (with no particular affiliation to either side of the argument) have posted, the endless arguing is just putting people off mapping, full stop. FOSM's prospects - and those of OSM, CommonMap and any other projects - are not best served by these arguments. For every one mapper attracted because you convince them OSM cheated them, five are put off because of the acrimony. (And, of course, the arguing takes up your and my and others' time that would be better spent on coding, evangelising and mapping!) Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than knocking the other one? Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than knocking the other one? But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F will look to future users, they will be seen as devious in the methods employed, rather than being seen as sticking to their moral guns. I guess that's a no then. :( :( Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. Fair enough. As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only. Guess that's you gone, then. Bye. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/rationalising-administrative-boundaries-tp6477097p6493901.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JOSM filtering image/map tile URLs
Sam Vekemans wrote: It's a good think that potlatch2 doesn't restrict APIs :) [...] Oops, I mean restrict Imagery URLs. ... sorry got carried away on the last message :) Elizabeth Dodd wrote: If you wade through the whole conversation on the josm-dev mailing list you would be aware that P2 does indeed prevent you from using any URL with the string google in it. Or, mu. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/JOSM-filtering-image-map-tile-URLs-tp5972714p5975776.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
Steve Bennett wrote: Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: 1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan. Hear, hear. The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is: OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's elections will take place at the start of July as usual. (Last year's election: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM10/Election_to_Board ) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/license-change-map-tp5759109p5780641.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] MS imagery
Luke W. (lakeyboy) wrote: Is there already a usable URL out there that can be put into Potlatch 2 or other editors? You could in theory use Bing right now in Potlatch 2 if you run your own instance, but although the code's been written, none of the public instances (Geowiki, MapQuest, or even random.dev) currently offer Bing as an option. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/MS-imagery-tp5772885p5775813.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
David Murn wrote: the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to address the problematic terms and simply tell people the decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion. Hardly the way to run an open community project. I realise the phrase assume good faith is becoming increasingly over-used in these discussions, but if the above were true, then the Contributor Terms would still be in 1.0. Instead there's now a 1.2 draft, plus a whole bunch of smaller incremental revisions along the way, as suggested by mappers. (One example: I suggested a change last week to cement compatibility with attribution-required sources, such as Ordnance Survey OpenData and those offered under CC-BY; LWG listened, agreed to incorporate the change, and it's now in the 1.2 draft.) One other phrase which sadly doesn't get as much traction as it used to is patches welcome. There are no powers that be in OSM; there is no them and us. It's a collaborative project. It's all us. If you want something changed, help to change it. Because when you engage with the guys who are doing stuff, make suggestions, talk to them in a friendly manner, the result is better for everyone. That applies as much to licence discussions as it does to OSM software or website development. But when you throw assumptions and resentment around and assume the worst, yes, the worst usually happens. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/license-change-map-tp5759109p5763389.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I don't agree with ODBL. I don't think that it is right that those providing manipulated data eg data ready for a navigation app (Navit, Garmin format) should have to provide access to a planet dump of OSM as well. They don't have to. ODbL 4.6b: You must also offer to recipients... A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. That could be as simple as the command line you used to invoke mkgmap, copied and pasted into a text file. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/license-change-map-tp5759109p5764232.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
On 05/12/2009 21:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: The proposed licence is not a benefit to Australians in my view. You have generously qualified this with in my view and I should point out that I disagree with all the force I can muster. I spent about two hours this morning writing a pretty detailed e-mail, with all the case law citations you could want, explaining how the recent Australian High Court judgement followed Rural v Feist in the US, and therefore required the contract approach of ODbL rather than the copyright-only approach of CC-BY-SA. I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and therefore I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best chance of any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data. CC-BY-SA will not protect it at all. The e-mail is here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html I don't mind that your vote is lost; but I hope that others will look into the law and the references cited, rather than taking either yours, or my, interpretations on trust. Apologies for the cross-post, but you have raised this same point on all three lists. For anyone good enough to read and reply, please do trim the follow-ups. Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
