Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Andrew wynnd...@... writes: In the unlikely event that issues with Opendata are unresolvable the database people will have to remove all Opendata-based mapping anyway, leaving my contributions clean. This is in the even more unlikely event that the benefit to the project from moving to ODbL (which is, um, absolutely essential, since the current licence is totally unworkable, as proved by the success of the project over the past six years) is considered to outweigh the benefit of using the Ordnance Survey data. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
On 22 August 2010 20:52, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be dropping this rather quickly? Quite! Also, why is it on the wiki without a massive red font warning? Why did the announcement about the new terms not include a very clear line on this for all UK contributors? Why has a clear announcement about this problem not gone out on opengeodata, the announce list, this list, etc. from the OSM Foundation? I have been contributing stacks of data using the OS StreetView data on the assumption that - having been discussed, put on the wiki and into Potlatch, it was OK. Now I hear from Etienne that I might have to drop out of OpenStreetMap because my user account may not be compatible with the new terms, and that I cannot agree to those new terms with which I agree? If true, this is a bit crazy. Regards, Tom ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Tom Chance t...@... writes: I have been contributing stacks of data using the OS StreetView data on the assumption that - having been discussed, put on the wiki and into Potlatch, it was OK. Now I hear from Etienne that I might have to drop out of OpenStreetMap because my user account may not be compatible with the new terms, and that I cannot agree to those new terms with which I agree?If true, this is a bit crazy. The whole licensing thing is a bit crazy IMHO. But I don't think you need worry. Whatever the legalities of the situation, and even allowing for the high-handed behaviour of the OSMF, nobody would be crazy enough to throw out all the Ordnance Survey data (after so many lobbied to open it up) in order to indulge some amateur-lawyering pedantry. It's just not going to happen. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Massive +1 (at the risk of being recursive) PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? From: Tom Chance [...@acrewoods.net] Sent: 23 August 2010 08:55 To: Barnett, Phillip Cc: David Groom; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% On 22 August 2010 20:52, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.ukmailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be dropping this rather quickly? Quite! Also, why is it on the wiki without a massive red font warning? Why did the announcement about the new terms not include a very clear line on this for all UK contributors? Why has a clear announcement about this problem not gone out on opengeodata, the announce list, this list, etc. from the OSM Foundation? I have been contributing stacks of data using the OS StreetView data on the assumption that - having been discussed, put on the wiki and into Potlatch, it was OK. Now I hear from Etienne that I might have to drop out of OpenStreetMap because my user account may not be compatible with the new terms, and that I cannot agree to those new terms with which I agree? If true, this is a bit crazy. Regards, Tom Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Phillip Barnett wrote: Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be dropping this rather quickly? I like the we there - much better than the usual Richard. Really looking forward to the patch to the API so that users can retrieve their own CT status, and the patch to Potlatch's background layer selector to take account of this. Plus a manual override for users who are aware of what's substantial and what isn't, so therefore know what they can legitimately use. And the resulting Potlatch testing and recompile, plus submitting it through this bizarre git thing which the Rails port now appears to use (and which I still haven't figured out). All rather quickly. No? Ah well, it was a nice thought. Assuming no-one steps up to the plate and codes, tests and submits a patch, I'll look at it (and NearMap too) next week or so when I'm not on deadline with the day job. But I have every confidence that the issue, which is trivial and easily fixable by a slight clarification to the CTs will be fixed soon at any rate. I realise the scaremongers (not you, Phillip) will then have to find something else to wibble about, but hey. Sometimes I think we need Michael Winner on these licence threads to come and say calm down, dear at regular intervals. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/The-last-2-tp5431510p5452178.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Richard Fairhurst wrote on 23/08/2010 12:00: Phillip Barnett wrote: Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be dropping this rather quickly? I like the "we" there - much better than the usual "Richard". Really looking forward to the patch to the API so that users can retrieve their own CT status, and the patch to Potlatch's background layer selector to take account of this. Plus a manual override for users who are aware of what's substantial and what isn't, so therefore know what they can legitimately use. And the resulting Potlatch testing and recompile, plus submitting it through this bizarre git thing which the Rails port now appears to use (and which I still haven't figured out). All "rather quickly". No? Ah well, it was a nice thought. Assuming no-one steps up to the plate and codes, tests and submits a patch, I'll look at it (and NearMap too) next week or so when I'm not on deadline with the day job. But I have every confidence that the issue, which is trivial and easily fixable by a slight clarification to the CTs will be fixed soon at any rate. I realise the scaremongers (not you, Phillip) will then have to find something else to wibble about, but hey. Sometimes I think we need Michael Winner on these licence threads to come and say "calm down, dear" at regular intervals. cheers Richard Isn't the real issue that: 1) OS, through the Government have responded to a need and have provided useful data with no unreasonable restrictions on its use. 2) For reasons of principle, the powers that be in OSM are unable to modify a general stance into something that reflects a special situation here. This could be resolved - it seems morally correct to give an attribution to OS, which is the only substantive condition of the licence. It seems like a classic case of standing on principles and that is rarely a good thing. For sure, every country or even county could end up with this, but for a small amount of licensing text - not a real burden surely? The typical British casual British user is not going to understand why OSM are unable to be pragmatic to the advantage of British users. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Forgive me if I'm missing something staring me in the face, but where do I find the new TCs and how do I sign up to them should I decide I want to? Cheers, Jim (corshamjim, OSC contributor since some time last year) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
On 23/08/10 12:46, Jim Avery wrote: Forgive me if I'm missing something staring me in the face, but where do I find the new TCs and how do I sign up to them should I decide I want to? http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
I am also taking the view that the OS issue will get resolved by the licensing group. The potential incompatibility of the OSM contributor terms with any 'attribribution' requirement on source data seems to be a serious problem (should that be the case) and I am sure they are grappling with it. I am confident that the issue with the OS OpenData (should there be one) is one that will be resolvable by OSMF possibly in discussion with the OS and/or British government if necessary. I wish them luck with that and will support them in their efforts if asked. Fyi, I have contributed very extensively around the world over 3 years and can't sign up to the terms due to recent work using OS OpenData. In general I am getting on with other stuff while this gets sorted. Regards, Peter Miller On 23 August 2010 09:47, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: Massive +1 (at the risk of being recursive) PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? From: Tom Chance [...@acrewoods.net] Sent: 23 August 2010 08:55 To: Barnett, Phillip Cc: David Groom; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% On 22 August 2010 20:52, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be dropping this rather quickly? Quite! Also, why is it on the wiki without a massive red font warning? Why did the announcement about the new terms not include a very clear line on this for all UK contributors? Why has a clear announcement about this problem not gone out on opengeodata, the announce list, this list, etc. from the OSM Foundation? I have been contributing stacks of data using the OS StreetView data on the assumption that - having been discussed, put on the wiki and into Potlatch, it was OK. Now I hear from Etienne that I might have to drop out of OpenStreetMap because my user account may not be compatible with the new terms, and that I cannot agree to those new terms with which I agree? If true, this is a bit crazy. Regards, Tom Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
On 23 August 2010 12:59, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 23/08/10 12:46, Jim Avery wrote: Forgive me if I'm missing something staring me in the face, but where do I find the new TCs and how do I sign up to them should I decide I want to? http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms Many thanks Tom. - I'll agree to the terms with the public domain thing too because I really don't mind what people do with my meagre contribution. The terms do seem to me to preclude copying from OS, but IANAL and I'll happily wait until someone who is gives a proper pronouncement on the subject before using it again. I haven't made enough edits using OS data myself to lose any sleep over whether any will be deleted at some point down the line. Cheers, Jim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
OS opendata is released under a CC-BY-SA licence Please go and actually read the OS OpenData licence. It is not CC-BY-SA. Please stop spreading this FUD. You're right, it's not CC-By-SA. The actual license is a custom attribution-style license, that's closest equivalent in CC terms would be CC-By. However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. For the reasoning, if you're not convinced, see http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003999.html Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
- Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData to OSM you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the future. I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion on this [2]. David Kevin [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. IMO it's clear that the current OS license does not allow you to contribute the data under either the current OSM Contributor Terms, or the DbCL part of the license. (I'd also argue that the produced works terms in ODbL are incompatible with the OS license too, but that's less clear.) What isn't clear yet is whether either side will be prepared to compromise to allow information derived from OS OpenData products to be kept in OSM. I am hopeful that OS will allow use under ODbL+DbCL, but I personally can't see them agreeing to any contributor terms that don't guarantee attribution. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comrobert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData to OSM you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the future. To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms. If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently stand. Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under CC-BY-SA. This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content. I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion on this [2]. David Kevin [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
I've been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I've contributed approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected? I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to. I'm now not touching OS data - but is it too late? Surely it's just a question of removing the 'tainted' changesets? Or, to be safe, all the changesets I've contributed since the OS data became available? [http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif] PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UKhttp://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of 80n Sent: 22 August 2010 18:41 To: David Groom Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netmailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.commailto:ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.commailto:robert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData to OSM you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the future. To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms. If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently stand. Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under CC-BY-SA. This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content. I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion on this [2]. David Kevin [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Phillip OSM has always taken a very conservative approach on licensing and if in doubt has erred on the side of caution. Following this philosophy you cannot agree to the contributor terms. If you can find a way to revert your OS contributions then you would be able to agree to the new contributor terms. Alternatively, if someone were to provide a way to change the authorship of those changesets to a different user ID that remained CC-BY-SA then you would also be free to agree to the new license. Doing this would actually just postpone the reversion of those changesets and it would happen later, after the license switch, when all CC-BY-SA licensed data would get purged from the database. 80n On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: I’ve been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I’ve contributed approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected? I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to. I’m now not touching OS data – but is it too late? Surely it’s just a question of removing the ‘tainted’ changesets? Or, to be safe, all the changesets I’ve contributed since the OS data became available? ** *PHILLIP BARNETT **SERVER MANAGER * 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? -- *From:* talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *80n *Sent:* 22 August 2010 18:41 *To:* David Groom *Cc:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comrobert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData to OSM you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the future. To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms. If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently stand. Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under CC-BY-SA. This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content. I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion on this [2]. David Kevin [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
- Original Message - From: Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk To: '80n' 80n...@gmail.com; David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:06 PM Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% I've been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I've contributed approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected? I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to. I'm now not touching OS data - but is it too late? Surely it's just a question of removing the 'tainted' changesets? Or, to be safe, all the changesets I've contributed since the OS data became available? Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's and their preamble. The preamble states you accept the terms of this agreement for your existing and future contributions. You have an 3 existing contributions (changesets) which include OS data, and so technically you cant agree to the CT's. Even if you removed the tainted changesets I would contend you are still unable to agree the CT's as the data was still had added (though subsequently removed) . Now if the preamble stated you accept the terms of this agreement for your existing (to the extent that they have not previously been removed) and future contributions, then you might be on slightly safer ground agreeing to the CT's, but even then, as the addition exists as history, and isn't technically removed from the DB then you probably would still have problems agreeing to the CT's. David [http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif] PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UKhttp://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of 80n Sent: 22 August 2010 18:41 To: David Groom Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netmailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.commailto:ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.commailto:robert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData to OSM you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the future. To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms. If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently stand. Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under CC-BY-SA. This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content. I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion on this [2]. David Kevin [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
- Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk Cc: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% Phillip OSM has always taken a very conservative approach on licensing and if in doubt has erred on the side of caution. Following this philosophy you cannot agree to the contributor terms. If you can find a way to revert your OS contributions then you would be able to agree to the new contributor terms. 80n I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you there, see my post which was made at 20:30 Alternatively, if someone were to provide a way to change the authorship of those changesets to a different user ID that remained CC-BY-SA then you would also be free to agree to the new license. Doing this would actually I'd also dispute this point, as the CT's talk refer to the user which added the data, not the user who currently owns it. So even if the authorship were changed to a different user ID, it would still have been Phillip who added the data in the first place. David just postpone the reversion of those changesets and it would happen later, after the license switch, when all CC-BY-SA licensed data would get purged from the database. 80n On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: I’ve been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I’ve contributed approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected? I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to. I’m now not touching OS data – but is it too late? Surely it’s just a question of removing the ‘tainted’ changesets? Or, to be safe, all the changesets I’ve contributed since the OS data became available? ** *PHILLIP BARNETT **SERVER MANAGER * 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? -- *From:* talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *80n *Sent:* 22 August 2010 18:41 *To:* David Groom *Cc:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comrobert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData to OSM you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the future. To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms. If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently stand. Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under CC-BY-SA. This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content. I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion on this [2]. David Kevin [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
Thanks 80n and David, Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be dropping this rather quickly? Phillip -Original Message- From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Groom Sent: 22 August 2010 20:30 To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% - Original Message - From: Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk To: '80n' 80n...@gmail.com; David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:06 PM Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% I've been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I've contributed approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected? I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to. I'm now not touching OS data - but is it too late? Surely it's just a question of removing the 'tainted' changesets? Or, to be safe, all the changesets I've contributed since the OS data became available? Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's and their preamble. The preamble states you accept the terms of this agreement for your existing and future contributions. You have an 3 existing contributions (changesets) which include OS data, and so technically you cant agree to the CT's. Even if you removed the tainted changesets I would contend you are still unable to agree the CT's as the data was still had added (though subsequently removed) . Now if the preamble stated you accept the terms of this agreement for your existing (to the extent that they have not previously been removed) and future contributions, then you might be on slightly safer ground agreeing to the CT's, but even then, as the addition exists as history, and isn't technically removed from the DB then you probably would still have problems agreeing to the CT's. David [http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif] PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UKhttp://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of 80n Sent: 22 August 2010 18:41 To: David Groom Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netmailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.commailto:ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.commailto:robert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly ODbL too. I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers (woods, streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me. It is still to be confirmed. The situation at the moment is there is no guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's. Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData to OSM you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the future. To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms. If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently stand. Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under CC-BY-SA. This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content. I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion on this [2]. David Kevin [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw ___ Talk-GB mailing list
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
David Groom revi...@... writes: Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's and their preamble. I see no real problem. All of my Opendata-based edits have clear source tags; apart from quality control issues, I have always understood this is needed for the licence even without the relicensing. In the unlikely event that issues with Opendata are unresolvable the database people will have to remove all Opendata-based mapping anyway, leaving my contributions clean. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
- Original Message - From: Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% David Groom revi...@... writes: Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's and their preamble. I see no real problem. All of my Opendata-based edits have clear source tags; apart from quality control issues, I have always understood this is needed for the licence even without the relicensing. In the unlikely event that issues with Opendata are unresolvable the database people will have to remove all Opendata-based mapping anyway, leaving my contributions clean. Oh , if only it were that simple. Partly as I said in my earlier email, the CT's talk about data you have added, not data which still exists. But more importantly your contributions would still remain in all the planet dumps, so I presume you'd be relying on the database people to remove the data from them as well. Probably a time consuming task, but potentially do-able. But then there are all the copies of the planet dumps held on other peoples computers. Should the database people ask for all of them to be returned so they can be cleaned? You see data you add to OSM cant easily be removed. David -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
- Original Message - From: Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:29 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2% David Groom revi...@... writes: Oh , if only it were that simple. Partly as I said in my earlier email, the CT's talk about data you have added, not data which still exists. But more importantly your contributions would still remain in all the planet dumps, so I presume you'd be relying on the database people to remove the data from them as well. Probably a time consuming task, but potentially do-able. But then there are all the copies of the planet dumps held on other peoples computers. Should the database people ask for all of them to be returned so they can be cleaned? You see data you add to OSM cant easily be removed. David -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list talk...@... http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb I still see no problem. There is essentially no difference post-relicensing between data derived from an unrelicensable source and mapping that is not relicensed because people cannot be contacted. Planet dumps from the CC-by-SA era are a non-issue because they remain wholly under the Creative Commons licence; post-relicensing history dumps omit both sets ofdata. But it is not a question of the wording of the licence, its a question of the wording of the Contributor Terms. I've not mentioned the licence at all in the context of this discussion. The preamble to the CT's state they refer to existing and future contributions. Therefore they cover contributions exiting in the planet dumps, therefore you have to be able to say the data in those dumps complies with the CT's. Nothing to do with what licence the planet dumps are issued under. David -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
David Groom revi...@... writes: Oh , if only it were that simple. Partly as I said in my earlier email, the CT's talk about data you have added, not data which still exists. But more importantly your contributions would still remain in all the planet dumps, so I presume you'd be relying on the database people to remove the data from them as well. Probably a time consuming task, but potentially do-able. But then there are all the copies of the planet dumps held on other peoples computers. Should the database people ask for all of them to be returned so they can be cleaned? You see data you add to OSM cant easily be removed. David -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list talk...@... http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb I still see no problem. There is essentially no difference post-relicensing between data derived from an unrelicensable source and mapping that is not relicensed because people cannot be contacted. Planet dumps from the CC-by-SA era are a non-issue because they remain wholly under the Creative Commons licence; post-relicensing history dumps omit both sets ofdata. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
- Original Message - From: Shane Reynolds shane...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The last 2% Hi, I am the developer who works on a number of products including OSM Analysis for ITO. I am slightly confused about making the OS Locator box a dashed box if the not:name tag is present. When we do the processing if any street is found with the not:name tag matching an OS Locator street then these should not be flagged in the stats nor should they be drawn on the map. Are you saying that this is not the case and they are still appearing? If this is true then possibly there is a bug that I may want to address (we are usually a day behind the updated planet file so possibly its something to do with that?) With regard to getting the figures down (in slight fear of being flamed as I am a very novice mapper) - with apostrophes, if the road sign has an apostrophe then I would say the apostrophe should be in OSM and if it is not then it is correct to flag it as a difference. However if the road sign does not have an apostrophe and OS Locator does then probably the road should have a not:name tag added with the apostrophe version of the name. This would remove any apostrophe issues. With regard to rural roads - if they have no road signs is it not better to use the OS Locator name rather than have no name at all as I think in general OS Locator has been proved to be pretty accurate? (apologies if in my ignorance I do not know that there is a good reason not to do this). There is one pretty good reason. OS opendata is released under a CC-BY-SA licence There is a pretty strong reason to believe that CC-BY-SA data is not compatible with the new Contributor Terms ODbL If you have added any data based on the OS opendata therefore you can not agree to the contributor terms. If you can't agree to the contributor terms then at some point in the future you will no longer be able to contribute to OSM. Therefore, for me, use of OS Opendata is one more factor which will complicate my ability to continue to contribute to OSM.once agreeing to the CT becomes mandatory Note the above analysis is based on the current situation and assumes: (1) that the OS will not change their licence so it is compatible with Contributor Terms ODbL (2) OSM does not change Contributor Terms ODbL so it is compatible with CC-BY (3) The Contributor Terms are not changed to allow a user to create a new account and start mapping afresh As this isn't the legal mailing list , if anyone wants to debate these points I suggest they raise them on legal-talk mailing list or, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%
David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Shane Reynolds shane...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The last 2% Hi, I am the developer who works on a number of products including OSM Analysis for ITO. I am slightly confused about making the OS Locator box a dashed box if the not:name tag is present. When we do the processing if any street is found with the not:name tag matching an OS Locator street then these should not be flagged in the stats nor should they be drawn on the map. Are you saying that this is not the case and they are still appearing? If this is true then possibly there is a bug that I may want to address (we are usually a day behind the updated planet file so possibly its something to do with that?) With regard to getting the figures down (in slight fear of being flamed as I am a very novice mapper) - with apostrophes, if the road sign has an apostrophe then I would say the apostrophe should be in OSM and if it is not then it is correct to flag it as a difference. However if the road sign does not have an apostrophe and OS Locator does then probably the road should have a not:name tag added with the apostrophe version of the name. This would remove any apostrophe issues. With regard to rural roads - if they have no road signs is it not better to use the OS Locator name rather than have no name at all as I think in general OS Locator has been proved to be pretty accurate? (apologies if in my ignorance I do not know that there is a good reason not to do this). There is one pretty good reason. OS opendata is released under a CC-BY-SA licence Please go and actually read the OS OpenData licence. It is not CC-BY-SA. Please stop spreading this FUD. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
