date:20140503

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

2014-05-03 Per discussione Jukka Rahkonen

Steve Coast steve@... writes:


 But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re speaking here about 
 the simple ask, that if you use OSM you please say clearly on the map 
 that it is OSM. You’re getting a great dataset, for free, under an open 
 license, that millions of people are contributing to. We’re not asking 
 for $100,000 license fees, we’re just asking that you say who we are.
 It’s the ultimate human need; I was here. I did this.

OSM is such a strong project that there should be no need to exaggarate. We
have 1.6 million registered users [1] and of those a bit more than 30
has made the last edit into the database [2]. The number of active members
is  growing steadily and linearly [3]. And by looking at the list of Top
users editing over the past in [1], imports has nowadays a huge importance
for the project - I was here, sitting in my own armchair. I did this import.

I agree with the attribution to OSM, we have written rules and all players
should follow them. When looking the attribution from opposite side,
according to our contributor terms all imported data come OSM data as soon
as it is stored into the database and we have no need to mention the origin
of data. However, we voluntarily do that at least to some extent, which is
fair [4] [5] [6].

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/stats/data_stats.html
[2] http://osmstats.altogetherlost.com/
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
[5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
[6] http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

-Jukka Rahkonen-


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

2014-05-03 Per discussione Simon Poole



Am 03.05.2014 10:26, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen:
  And by looking at the list of Top
 users editing over the past in [1], imports has nowadays a huge importance
 for the project - I was here, sitting in my own armchair. I did this import.

Since I'm with the project I can't remember any time when import
accounts (even when they were not explicitly declared as such) did not
populate the top positions in that list, which given the nature of the
beast is not a surprise and doesn't indicate importance or lack of such
for the project.

Actually I am fairly sure that imports have diminished in relative
volume and importance, given the extremely large (and some times
extremely bad) imports of the past when we had far less data in total
(adding a couple of million of addresses is peanuts in comparison).

In any case, I can argue that we have the moral and ethical obligation
to provide attribution for all sources that have contributed to OSM,
regardless of third party data or individual mappers by requiring a
clear and obvious notice pointing to OSM and contributors.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

2014-05-03 Per discussione Michael Collinson


Luis,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, I hope you don't mind 
that I've referenced the mail link on the page for resource reading!



On 30/04/2014 00:10, Luis Villa wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that this rule is only for OSM/ODBL, but it 
wouldn't hurt to make that more explicit. (It *has* to be only about 
OSM, because you can't judge whether something is substantial without 
knowing about the nature of the database (quantitative) and how the 
data was obtained (qualitative).)

Good point and done on the general Community Guideline page.


Few other comments:

  * It might be helpful to link to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features when talking about
Features, assuming those are the same concept, which I admit I'm
still not 100% sure about?
  * It might be helpful to explain better why the page is focused on
insubstantial rather than substantial.
  * The village/town distinction doesn't seem very helpful to me. If
the goal really is to push out commercial projects, very few
commercial projects are going to be viable at the town level - the
vast majority will be national level, with a few exceptions for
London/Paris/NY-level cities. So saying you can use towns would
still block out most commercial use while perhaps allowing some
small governments to do useful things. But I may be
misunderstanding the goal here?
  * I find This definition aims to:...Build a case for the
qualitative interpretation of Substantial to be slightly
confusing - I /think/ that what is meant is something like This
guideline attempts to clarify what uses would constitute a
substantial qualitative use of OSM data (perhaps implying that
many important uses are not going to be quantitatively
substantial?), but I'm really not sure. I would clarify or remove
that.

I've done some rewording to the summary which I hope addresses these. 
I've not added a link to the map features page, they are not (really) 
the same concept. A Feature is how an ordinary map viewing individual 
would see things: a single road (even if broken into different segments 
for speed limits), a lake, a pub (even if tagged with multitudinous 
detail on the beer and ATM machines). A general note to all: these 
guidelines are directed at folks who are not familiar with OSM, so need 
to worded accordingly using simple, hopeful translatable, wording and 
sentences.


 *

Hope this is helpful-


Indeed!

Mike

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)

2014-05-03 Per discussione Michael Collinson

On 28/04/2014 23:27, Mikel wrote:

Further I note there was 0 (zero) response to the proposed updated community
guidelines that
go a long way in clarifying a number of the grey areas, indicating that the
whole upset is not
about fixing real issues.

Simon, first i've heard about this. Can you point to where it's posted please,
and also, explain the process by which they were created, proposed, and
approved? Thanks

Mikel and all,

Here is one of the emails:

https://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg49397.html

And the process and main page are here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines

We'd like to get some closure on some of the longer lived items as well
as better publicise the whole process, so I am about to go to the main
list. Any discussion or input however small in the rather calmer waters
of this list first is greatly welcome. The more polished the guidelines
are, the better.

We also have a number of issues that are very immature in terms of
constructing a useful guideline. What we have been lacking, with some
notable exceptions, is data users prepared to give a real use case that
they can share in a reasonable level of detail. Being able to deal with
concrete rather than myriad hypothetical cases makes progress much
faster. If you are user or potential user of OSM data, do share
real-world issues here. Or, contact us at le...@osmfoundation.org. We
can handle commercial-in-confidence provided that the end result is
shareable publicly and applies to all equally within the parameters of
our license.

90 matches

Mail list logo