Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 10 August 2010 19:47, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: Since I've heard nothing more about this I can only assume that any consideration for a compromise has been rejected by the pro-PD crowd. Why do you even assume this? Grant pasted this from LWG minutes on IRC earlier today: It wasn't well received. It would be overly restrictive for the project. Who knows what we'll be doing in 10 years time? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 10 August 2010 11:26, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Grant pasted this from LWG minutes on IRC earlier today: It wasn't well received. It would be overly restrictive for the project. Who knows what we'll be doing in 10 years time? Misquoted. That is not for the LWG minutes. That is my person comment missing all context. Minutes are here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes#License_Working_Group Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
Since I've heard nothing more about this I can only assume that any consideration for a compromise has been rejected by the pro-PD crowd. On 30 July 2010 15:54, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 July 2010 15:40, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to just create a new account, and not agree to the CTs, only to discover you cannot create an account without accepting. That means that no new members can contribute by deriving information from Nearmap imagery... I've cc'd Grant on this email, he posted to the #osm-au IRC channel about some proposed changes to the CTs, which I was hoping would have come up in another thread by now: LWG is considering: 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: the Open Database Licence for the database and Database Contents Licence for the individual contents of the database; or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence (version 2.0 or later) If You have indicated to OSMF that you waive any rights in Your Contents (dedication to the 'public domain'), OSMF will additionally use or sub-license Your Contents under: the Public Domain Dedication License; or the Creative Commons CC0 waiver. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 31 July 2010 10:36, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: Then it doesn't help at all - what if ODbL 1.1 says that you can freely relicense to CC-Zero? And if you think that can't happen, go look at the GNU Free Documentation Licence 1.3 and Wikipedia. That kind of legal hijinks is the only reason Wikipedia can be under a CC licence now. Instead of specifying licenses and version, maybe the CTs need to explicitly state a minimal type of license, in the case of ODBL/CC-by-SA they are attribution + share alike style licenses, that would still allow updating the license if an undesirable loop hole is found, but limit changing the license to be similar in spirit. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: If You have indicated to OSMF that you waive any rights in Your Contents (dedication to the 'public domain'), OSMF will additionally use or sub-license Your Contents under: the Public Domain Dedication License; or the Creative Commons CC0 waiver. So hopefully that would mean that for a contributor who agrees to public domain of their contents, then that would apply only to the edits not sourced by nearmap, or some other CC-BY-* licence. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 30 July 2010 16:16, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: If You have indicated to OSMF that you waive any rights in Your Contents (dedication to the 'public domain'), OSMF will additionally use or sub-license Your Contents under: the Public Domain Dedication License; or the Creative Commons CC0 waiver. So hopefully that would mean that for a contributor who agrees to public domain of their contents, then that would apply only to the edits not sourced by nearmap, or some other CC-BY-* licence. That's going to be a very messy area to deal with, because it requires people sourcing or attributing perfectly all the time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 30 July 2010 07:19, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That's going to be a very messy area to deal with, because it requires people sourcing or attributing perfectly all the time. On a different topic of sourcing, as I mentionned some time ago, Spot Images will be releasing images of France in the near future for a period of 6 months. The attribution is very important to them and that's why someone is coding a plugin in JOSM that will be giving access to the WMS specifically and add the source automatically when the plugin is used (similar to what is happening with the Cadastre plugin, which enforces the source type in JOSM). That is a way of enforcing the source. Emilie Laffray ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 30 July 2010 19:40, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: On a different topic of sourcing, as I mentionned some time ago, Spot Images will be releasing images of France in the near future for a period of 6 months. The attribution is very important to them and that's why someone is coding a plugin in JOSM that will be giving access to the WMS specifically and add the source automatically when the plugin is used (similar to what is happening with the Cadastre plugin, which enforces the source type in JOSM). That is a way of enforcing the source. Not entirely what I meant, if you checked the other thread on how to add source=* tags it's actually complicated when you update data, but only update a small section so on and so forth. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 30 July 2010 11:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not entirely what I meant, if you checked the other thread on how to add source=* tags it's actually complicated when you update data, but only update a small section so on and so forth. Yup, hence the reason I mentioned it was about a different topic of sourcing, and I couldn't find the previous thread. Emilie Laffray ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 30 July 2010 20:24, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: Yup, hence the reason I mentioned it was about a different topic of sourcing, and I couldn't find the previous thread. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-July/006868.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 30/07/2010, at 3:54 PM, John Smith wrote: I've cc'd Grant on this email, he posted to the #osm-au IRC channel about some proposed changes to the CTs, which I was hoping would have come up in another thread by now: LWG is considering: 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: the Open Database Licence for the database and Database Contents Licence for the individual contents of the database; or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence (version 2.0 or later) I assume that giving the ODbL without a version number there means that it can be released under any version (upgrading to a later ODbL release is AIUI one of main reasons for the CTs). Then it doesn't help at all - what if ODbL 1.1 says that you can freely relicense to CC-Zero? And if you think that can't happen, go look at the GNU Free Documentation Licence 1.3 and Wikipedia. That kind of legal hijinks is the only reason Wikipedia can be under a CC licence now. Not even getting into the argument about who is allowed to define what a later version of the ODbL is. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 29 July 2010 13:57, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: What should I do? Can I unagree to the CTs? I doubt you can unagree, although you won't get an answer even if you asked, the whole process is very opaque and poorly communicated. There has been talk about exceptions for large data providers, but there is no disclosure of what constitutes a large data provider or how to get an exception. In short I have no idea what you should do, *if* we were to stick to OSM's whiter than white approach to copyright, the data you derived should be removed from the database due to breach of Nearmap terms. I'm not advocating that data actually be removed from the database for this reason, however the current CTs put a lot of new users in a very awkward position, and this is bound to blow up in someone's face at some point. If a new user, who has agreed to the contributor terms, makes a contribution that this derived from work that is *only* licensed under CC-BY-SA do they have the right to allow that contribution to be licensed under ODbL. I don't think they do. All existing new users need to be very careful about modifying existing CC only licensed work, which includes almost everything that is already in OSM, don't they? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 29 July 2010 17:58, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: If a new user, who has agreed to the contributor terms, makes a contribution that this derived from work that is *only* licensed under CC-BY-SA do they have the right to allow that contribution to be licensed under ODbL. I don't think they do. Nearmap's current terms just says a share alike license like cc-by-sa, ODBL *should* be ok, but there was questions about clarification on this sent by Nearmap to the legal list earlier, that isn't the major hurdle however. All existing new users need to be very careful about modifying existing CC only licensed work, which includes almost everything that is already in OSM, don't they? These sorts of questions are probably better to be sent to the legal-talk list. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
- Original Message - From: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com To: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:57 AM Subject: Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach... On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. Oh no. I remember now that when I signed up I agreed to the CTs (not sure which version, if it has changed), I did this with the mindset that any copyright that was assigned to me arising from my contributions, is a copyright that I don't want, and I would rather have that work placed in the public domain, and (not being a lawyer and not being able to completely understand the CTs) that clicking agree would make my contributions closer to the public domain. But I have since (after forgetting the CTs) also made contributions derived from Nearmap imagery. So it seems I have broken my agreement to the CTs. What should I do? Can I unagree to the CTs? I think you have 2 simple choices: 1) YOU have to ask Nearmap if they are OK with YOU using their imagery under the terms of the CT OR 2) you cant use Nearmap imagery for tracing, and you should ask for all your edits where you have used Nearmap imagery to be reversed out of the database. What worries me greatly in all this is that we are being assured the lawyers know what they are doing, and yet somehow the situation you find yourself in has been allowed to arise. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 29 July 2010 23:34, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: 1) YOU have to ask Nearmap if they are OK with YOU using their imagery under the terms of the CT Which they aren't so... 2) you cant use Nearmap imagery for tracing, and you should ask for all your edits where you have used Nearmap imagery to be reversed out of the database. What would be more interesting is figuring out how many others would be effected by this, there was some number kicking about the other week somewhere in the order of 30k new users that agreed to the new CTs, if even 0.5% of them traced from nearmap without using source=* tags how would we even know or where would we even begin to deal with this problem? I doubt many of the people effected would even know they are breaching Nearmap terms and conditions... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Which they aren't so... I was going to just create a new account, and not agree to the CTs, only to discover you cannot create an account without accepting. That means that no new members can contribute by deriving information from Nearmap imagery... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 30 July 2010 15:40, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to just create a new account, and not agree to the CTs, only to discover you cannot create an account without accepting. That means that no new members can contribute by deriving information from Nearmap imagery... I've cc'd Grant on this email, he posted to the #osm-au IRC channel about some proposed changes to the CTs, which I was hoping would have come up in another thread by now: LWG is considering: 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: the Open Database Licence for the database and Database Contents Licence for the individual contents of the database; or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence (version 2.0 or later) If You have indicated to OSMF that you waive any rights in Your Contents (dedication to the 'public domain'), OSMF will additionally use or sub-license Your Contents under: the Public Domain Dedication License; or the Creative Commons CC0 waiver. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 23 July 2010 00:08, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog *snip* Grant What's the lower limit for inclusion on this list? It says rather vaguely more than a few hundred nodes. 80n Those that imported the data, they make the decision. We have to ask everyone anyway, so it does not matter how many are on the list. / Grant That gives everyone a veto over relicensing since they needn't agree to the contributor terms. What is the purpose of the contributor terms if everyone can bypass them? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 21 July 2010 05:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and the licenses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog If there are any known entries missing, please add them. LWG has put out a request for this earlier, but it may not have reached talk-au shores. Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:50 PM, ed...@billiau.net wrote: On 21 July 2010 05:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and the licenses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog If there are any known entries missing, please add them. LWG has put out a request for this earlier, but it may not have reached talk-au shores. Grant What's the lower limit for inclusion on this list? It says rather vaguely more than a few hundred nodes. 80n Regards Grant This page is more complete with regard to data sources, but doesn't list the data we got from ABS (our largest donor). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports ___ 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] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 23 July 2010 00:08, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog *snip* Grant What's the lower limit for inclusion on this list? It says rather vaguely more than a few hundred nodes. 80n Those that imported the data, they make the decision. We have to ask everyone anyway, so it does not matter how many are on the list. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
If only public domain was accepted then all of the government's CC imports would not be possible. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Christoph Donges cdon...@gmail.com wrote: Things would have been so much simpler if they had gone with pd from the start. Personally I consider all my edits (not that there are that many) to be pd and I don't care what anybody, including osm do with them. ___ 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] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 21 July 2010 14:27, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: If only public domain was accepted then all of the government's CC imports would not be possible. I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and the licenses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going bye bye, all the Nearmap data will disappear as well. So unless the CTs change to accommodate these issues, we're looking at a very dismal and demoralising map, especially in some rural areas that recently became mapped out extensively, or we're going to need to serious start working on building up the needed infrastructure to be in a position to fork when the license change over occurs. I wish I could be more optimistic but at this stage I doubt that the CTs will be updated to accommodate us or anyone else in our position. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. Why? Are their new created work somehow inferiour to other created works? / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 18 July 2010 22:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. Why? Are their new created work somehow inferiour to other created works? The new CTs aren't limited to relicensing under a non-share alike license and Nearmap Terms and Conditions only allow their imagery to be used to derive data under a share alike license, although at present it can only be cc-by-sa until or if they update to some other license. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
Where do we vote against the ODBL? Im sure not going to start again. Markus. -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2010 9:06 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach... I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going bye bye, all the Nearmap data will disappear as well. So unless the CTs change to accommodate these issues, we're looking at a very dismal and demoralising map, especially in some rural areas that recently became mapped out extensively, or we're going to need to serious start working on building up the needed infrastructure to be in a position to fork when the license change over occurs. I wish I could be more optimistic but at this stage I doubt that the CTs will be updated to accommodate us or anyone else in our position. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3012 - Release Date: 07/18/10 04:05:00 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going bye bye, all the Nearmap data will disappear as well. Why would the CC-BY data go bye bye? The Licensing Working Group is still working with the lawyer regarding this and as far as I know nobody with any legal sense has made any statement why CC-BY would be a problem under OdbL. Did you even read what I wrote, the problem is with the Contributor Terms, specifically section 3, however everyone seems to think cc-by is compatible with the ODBL, but cc-by-sa isn't even though they are both share alike licenses they are some significant differences that make them incompatible. And regardless... I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt within a week from new data with community assistance. Yes I am aware there are other CC-BY imported datasets too. Liz simplified things too much, this isn't just about coast lines, there is a lot of other information derived from other cc-by and/or cc-by-sa data. John care to join us on the Licensing Working Group calls? Or alternatively let us know what should be changed. Maybe we can adjust time to better suit your timezone. In short, ODBL is probably ok, but the CTs, specifically section 3 isn't compatible with cc-by or Nearmap... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Grant Slater wrote: I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt within a week from new data with community assistance. Yes I am aware there are other CC-BY imported datasets too. This is a vastly simplified view of the world. If the new data was not superior, why did OSM contributors spend months moving from the PGS derived coastline (which also took months to make) to the ABS derived coastline? Why do we want to take better data and then throw it out? My personal survey mapping efforts extend over a vast geographical area. I'd like to be able to show you what the OSM map would look like without this, but there aren't any tools yet available. (One mapper is trying to work one out). My gut feeling is that I have drawn in the main roads, the rivers, the minor roads, and the streets over the major part of a piece of planet Earth. I am not in favour of the licence change, and my work will have to be removed. No one yet can sort out exactly how this will be removed - I don't think that a minor change by me makes it my work, or vice versa. There is still time for compromise. Some people are not in favour of any form of compromise, and insist that their way is the only way. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 1:18 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: As people should now be aware there is currently there is an issue, not so much with ODBL, but the new Terms and Conditions people have to agree to stating that OSM can change to other free licenses in future without requiring consent, without requiring consent? I disagree with you. I presume that you refer to paragraph three of the contributor terms http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. Which states clearly that it requires consent of the OSM foundation board and of 2/3 majority of current OSM contributors. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 11 July 2010 09:50, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I presume that you refer to paragraph three of the contributor terms http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. Which states clearly that it requires consent of the OSM foundation board and of 2/3 majority of current OSM contributors. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ODbL/Upcomingoldid=497888diff=next ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
As people should now be aware there is currently there is an issue, not so much with ODBL, but the new Terms and Conditions people have to agree to stating that OSM can change to other free licenses in future without requiring consent, while in theory this is a great idea since if there is a compelling reason to change/upgrade the license they can do so without all the problems occurring now, however due to the absence of requiring such a free license to be cc-by compatible (require some form of attribution) this then means any cc-by data would now have to be expunged from the system. Currently we have a fair bit of cc-by data in the system, things like ABS boundaries and in turn any data derived from such data, but so far there is only assumptions on how much data is this exactly, especially in Europe where the assumption is the majority of data has been relicensed or is clean to begin with, so they don't care about anyone else who may be effected by this change, but of course the big unknown is how many contributors will actually agree to this change, especially some of the more prolific editors. The $20mill dollar question however is this, and this is the pragmatic part, what would the state of the map be tomorrow if the license change over happened if all the cc-by data and derived data disappeared. For the purposes of this exercise I'll just make the blind assumption that anything with attribution=* would be considered cc-by, obviously this isn't a perfect test since some people have stripped the attribution information and other data may not have been attributed properly, then again even ODBL data could be tainted, and subtly enough to corrupt large chunks of the database, however this should give us a pretty good idea of what we're dealing with rather than keep making blind assumptions. I found that there is 97,573 ways/nodes/relations within an Australia bounding box with an attribution tag, although there needs to be a lot more interrogation of the data to make this a much more tangible and suitable for making objective decisions based on it. Although I did create a noattribution navit[1] file and a gosmore file[2] to try and help with visualising. The above 98k objects make up about 8M of compressed data[3], while this wouldn't be completely devastating, we're not just talking ABS data, there is a lot more to it like points of interest and national parks and other such things. As Kai wrote in another thread, the loss of data could have a big demoralising effect on anyone that spent time cleaning up or otherwise manipulating that data. Those that are so gung-ho to push through their own agendas might want to push for a small change to the TCs ensure attribution and most of this discussion would disappear, rather than alienating[4] people that contribute data from regional areas that we have enough trouble sourcing by any other means, that is unless they want to come and recruit others that would also do the work for free instead. Although I'm not sure what the point is of moving to another attribution/share-a-like license, if the TCs undermine this, unless of course the intent is to eventually force everyone to go to PD long term, but doing it on the sly hoping no one notices where things are headed. [1] http://map-data.bigtincan.com/data/australia-noattribution.navit.bin [2] http://map-data.bigtincan.com/data/australia-noattribution.pak [3] 149,017,722 v 157,576,420 respectively [4] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003441.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 10/07/2010, at 9:18 AM, John Smith wrote: however due to the absence of requiring such a free license to be cc-by compatible (require some form of attribution) this then means any cc-by data would now have to be expunged from the system. Only if the copyright holder hasn't agreed to the CTs. If you are importing any data into OSM, you either 1) have to be the copyright holder and agree to the CTs, gotten the copyright holder's permission to agree to the CTs on behalf of them, or 3) somehow gotten an exemption from having to agree to the CTs. I'm still trying to find out how you do (3). If you have imported data you got from someone else (other than public domain), you can't legally agree to the CTs. Since I've imported some data into OSM under my main account, I can't strictly click I Agree on that account unless the changesets are moved to a different account. Currently we have a fair bit of cc-by data in the system, things like ABS boundaries and in turn any data derived from such data, but so far there is only assumptions on how much data is this exactly, especially in Europe where the assumption is the majority of data has been relicensed or is clean to begin with, The big one in Europe is AND. Presumably they are going to get an exemption to the CTs, because they're definitely not going to agree to them for the same reason our governments aren't. while this wouldn't be completely devastating, we're not just talking ABS data, there is a lot more to it like points of interest and national parks and other such things. More important than losing data we wouldn't otherwise have, if losing data that has replaced older stuff. Various people have gone around replacing the old PGS coastline with ABS-derived coastline - someone is going to have to go and re-import the PGS stuff if we lose CC-BY data. I know I've replaced a bunch of Yahoo-imagery derived data with stuff based on CC-BY data. Although I'm not sure what the point is of moving to another attribution/share-a-like license, if the TCs undermine this, unless of course the intent is to eventually force everyone to go to PD long term, but doing it on the sly hoping no one notices where things are headed. If OSM does go ODbL, I'm tempted to propose PD re-licensing sometime after it settled down a bit (but not too settled) just to stir things up. From memory, someone has quoted 70% of people at SotM the other year as being happy to have their work PD - we only need a vote of OSMF (presumably 50% majority) and two thirds of active mappers. I'm sure that would go down *really* well, regardless of the outcome. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 10 July 2010 10:15, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: If you have imported data you got from someone else (other than public domain), you can't legally agree to the CTs. Since I've imported some data into OSM under my main account, I can't strictly click I Agree on that account unless the changesets are moved to a different account. This is just semantics, it isn't that useful to give exceptions to the TCs. Otherwise those with exceptions, especially if they supply large amounts of data, would be able to hold OSM hostage at a future point in time. The big one in Europe is AND. Presumably they are going to get an exemption to the CTs, because they're definitely not going to agree to them for the same reason our governments aren't. Which is nearly pointless trying to enforce the TCs on everyone, if large data suppliers will be exempt, all that needs to happen is include a small snippet about attribution and everyone is in the clear. More important than losing data we wouldn't otherwise have, if losing data that has replaced older stuff. Various people have gone around replacing the old PGS coastline with ABS-derived coastline - someone is going to have to go and re-import the PGS stuff if we lose CC-BY data. I know I've replaced a bunch of Yahoo-imagery derived data with stuff based on CC-BY data. Not necessarily, we now have nearmap to draw upon as well, alternatively there is also SRTM that could be used. If OSM does go ODbL, I'm tempted to propose PD re-licensing sometime after it settled down a bit (but not too settled) just to stir things up. From memory, someone has quoted 70% of people at SotM the other year as being happy to have their work PD - we only need a vote of OSMF (presumably 50% majority) and two thirds of active mappers. 70% of ~230 people isn't exactly a good sample size, that isn't even 10% of active mappers, and some of those for PD would be just as happy with cc-by, as I see it, things are pretty much committed to some form of attribution license, I don't see PD happening if for no other reason than to prevent Insert favourite commercial mapping company from just taking without giving back. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
