On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
> On 10/28/09, Ed Avis wrote:
>> Matt Amos writes:
>>
>>>let's assume some data are taken and modified and used to generate
>>>tiles. the ODbL would require that the modified data are made
>>>available, regardless of the license of the tiles. if
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>
>>these sites are in non-compliance with the license
>>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
>
> Would switching to ODBL (or any licence) solve this particular problem?
quite possibly, since ODbL or PD would allow the tile
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>
>>let's assume some data are taken and modified and used to generate
>>tiles. the ODbL would require that the modified data are made
>>available, regardless of the license of the tiles. if the data were
>>effectively-PD then there would be no requ
Matt Amos writes:
>let's assume some data are taken and modified and used to generate
>tiles. the ODbL would require that the modified data are made
>available, regardless of the license of the tiles. if the data were
>effectively-PD then there would be no requirement to make the modified
>data a
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Essentially, in any place where map data can be publicly seen (e.g. on a
> website) but yet not freely copied (because of copyright or database rights),
> the share-alike licence needs to neutralize those rights, to make sure they
> are passed on t
Matt Amos writes:
>these sites are in non-compliance with the license
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
Would switching to ODBL (or any licence) solve this particular problem?
>in any case, it's not useful to talk about people "stealing" the data
>- anyone can take
Matt Amos writes:
>>In my ideal ponies world the database itself would be CC-compatible, so
>>people could generate excerpts ('list of all pubs in Swindon') and include
>>that in CC works.
>
>would the list of all pubs in Swindon be a database, or a produced
>work? if it's included, formatted as
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>
let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and
isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license,
which license?
>
>>>I would prefer one which is CC-compatible,
>
>>which bits ne
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Tom Hughes writes:
>
>>>But strong claims require strong evidence. To claim that CC-BY-SA is
>>>'dreadful' requires, IMHO, evidence of real rather than theoretical cases
>>>where it's holding back the goal of free map data. You might tell me tha
Matt Amos writes:
>>>let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and
>>>isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license,
>>>which license?
>>I would prefer one which is CC-compatible,
>which bits need to be CC-compatible? any "produced work", i.e: tiles,
>c
Frederik Ramm writes:
>>In general, the ideal licence would not need to be fully watertight in
>>all jurisdictions, but only strong enough to provide a good deterrent
>>in practice for most individuals and companies.
>
>What would you want to deter them from?
I meant to say 'deterrent against re
Tom Hughes writes:
>>But strong claims require strong evidence. To claim that CC-BY-SA is
>>'dreadful' requires, IMHO, evidence of real rather than theoretical cases
>>where it's holding back the goal of free map data. You might tell me that
>>the fence around my field is completely ineffective
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
> In general, the ideal licence would not need to be fully watertight in
> all jurisdictions, but only strong enough to provide a good deterrent
> in practice for most individuals and companies.
What would you want to deter them from?
Bye
Frederik
___
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>>we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the
>>license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large
>>amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested
>>that share-alike is a much
On 28/10/09 14:40, Ed Avis wrote:
> But strong claims require strong evidence. To claim that CC-BY-SA is
> 'dreadful' requires, IMHO, evidence of real rather than theoretical cases
> where it's holding back the goal of free map data. You might tell me that
> the fence around my field is complete
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> I'd be a lot more persuaded if there were evidence of a real, occurring
> problem rather than a theoretical one.
[snip]
Or in other words, you still believe the the CC-BY-SA license is fine,
all the re-licensing stuff isn't worth it, and you don
Matt Amos writes:
>there has been some FUD about these "deletions" of data. let me say it
>here: no data will be deleted. if the re-licensing goes ahead then all
>of the data that everyone has contributed would be made available
>through dumps.
Right. I think everyone understands that, but for
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'm not saying that Creative Commons are always right, but trying to
> make it sound as if they were endorsing OdBL is a bit heavy.
I'm not sure where I mentioned the OdBL? I'm just trying to make the
point to Ed that his desire to continue
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>> That is, Creative Commons have advised
>> us, and everyone else, to not use CCBYSA for data. It doesn't come
>> more plain than that.
>
> I'm not saying that Creative Commons are always right, but trying to
> make it soun
Andy Allan writes:
>> Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal,
>
>It's not "less than ideal". It's dreadful. The OSMF license team have
>created a document explaining why. We've had lawyers confirming that
>it probably doesn't work. Even the people who created it say that it
>should no
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
> That is, Creative Commons have advised
> us, and everyone else, to not use CCBYSA for data. It doesn't come
> more plain than that.
I would very much appreciate if *everyone* who invokes Creative Commons
saying that CC-BY-SA is not suitable for data would also add the sec
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Remember, though, that there are huge transaction costs associated with any
> licence switch. Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal, it might
> be better than deleting big chunks out of the database and alienating parts
> of the contr
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal,
It's not "less than ideal". It's dreadful. The OSMF license team have
created a document explaining why. We've had lawyers confirming that
it probably doesn't work. Even the people who created i
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>>Dr Evil doesn't need an unlimited legal budget - he just needs to live
>>in a country where non-creative data isn't copyrightable.
>
> ...and in a country where it is crystal clear that the OSM data is
> 'non-creative'. That p
Frederik Ramm writes:
>Indeed, the
>very first "official" statements from OSMF already contained what is
>still the official chicken wording today: "[A PD license is] unlikely to
>be adopted by all.", or "unlikely to be palatable to many OSM contributors".
>Which is strange, given that it is
Matt Amos writes:
>>If someone is taking OSM data and misusing it secretly, then they would
>>be able to continue doing that whatever licence was chosen. So we only
>>need to consider cases where a violation becomes publicly known.
>
>my point was more like "there's no evidence yet". just becaus
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
>> if we carry on licensing CC BY-SA we may get to the state where CC
>> BY-SA is challenged. if the challenge is in the US, i think there's a
>> good chance of OSMF losing,
>
> Would that be such a disaster? If such a precedent were set, then any
> factual data derived from O
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>
>>>I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available
>>>under CC share-alike terms, and I see no evidence of evil mapmakers copying
>>>it with impunity.
>>
>>absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, an
Frederik Ramm writes:
>You seem to be saying:
>
>1. there is no proof that CC-BY-SA doesn't work;
>
>2. there is danger that anything based on contract law weakens the
>protection we have for our data (because breach of contract doesn't give
>us a strong handle)
>
>3. you accept that CC-BY-SA u
Matt Amos writes:
>>I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available
>>under CC share-alike terms, and I see no evidence of evil mapmakers copying
>>it with impunity.
>
>absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and so forth
If someone is taking OSM data and misusing it
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>
you'd happily support distributing the data under a license which is
not likely to protect it?
>
> I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available
> under CC share-alike terms, and I see no evidenc
Ed,
I don't quite follow your logic.
You seem to be saying:
1. there is no proof that CC-BY-SA doesn't work;
2. there is danger that anything based on contract law weakens the
protection we have for our data (because breach of contract doesn't give
us a strong handle)
3. you accept that
Matt Amos writes:
>>>you'd happily support distributing the data under a license which is
>>>not likely to protect it?
I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available
under CC share-alike terms, and I see no evidence of evil mapmakers copying
it with impunity.
>>I think he'
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Thanks. The reason I asked that was that I frequently forget where the GPS
>> trace was taken - was it a road or a track, which village or whatever else.
>> This usually happens in areas where OSM map is pitch white :) Yahoo maps
>> aren't very helpful there either.
34 matches
Mail list logo
