Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer. Yes, the True Answer as John and I know. Let's be true and tlk of honestness. John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. Jane Smith ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the discussion over the LINZ import. Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL relicensing. That is the argument of the Rich. That they contribut money when we the people contribut our flesh and bones to the map! Sureley someone who contribtues more than another is doing from their goodwill and all contributions are equal in reality? We need to rise up and take the reins of Power. As 80n has foretold. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
You would have had more luck sticking to one alias (Jane Smith), now you're just making it obvious as to your goals. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some are now stooping to questionable tactics, but it just re-enforces the fact that I no longer have any faith in those that are pushing for license changes are doing so for the good of the project. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be brought down? Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for longer before others wise up as to your intents... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:55 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: You would have had more luck sticking to one alias (Jane Smith), now you're just making it obvious as to your goals. John you are correct. The more we use our aliases the better. But no I am not 80n or 80 m. The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John, the longer we can disrupt things! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be brought down? Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for longer before others wise up as to your intents... John! You are right! How do I disrupt the community covertly like you and Anthony and Liz and 80n? I am trying to learn! Am I being too Open? Teach me! I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
On 1 September 2010 17:00, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John Oh goody a juicy secret... do tell, or should be have a sleep over and play truth or dare? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! Did you have a good flight from Germany? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:09 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 17:00, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John Oh goody a juicy secret... do tell, or should be have a sleep over and play truth or dare? But John you said you'd never juicy ask me that! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! Did you have a good flight from Germany? Yar I ist eating mine fritter John. can you explainen the distruptnik of the community again? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be content with the license... Thank you both for being so concerned about my personal license preference. Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I think. - As for the contributor terms, some parts of them are necessary and some are not necessary but prudent, among them the much-discussed clause 3; only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. You seem to be sending your emails from OppositeLand, JohnSmith. The Contributor Terms, and specifically the relicensing term in term three are prudent because we know that it is impossible to know what license will be best for OSM in 6, 10 or 50 years. That you assert that CC-By-SA is right for OSM now and will be the right license for OSM forevermore makes you the one claiming perfect foresight. That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. As others have pointed out, OSM-F expects contributors to trust it without putting any trust in the contributors... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or unreachable by then, well, tough luck. - The après moi le déluge stance if you will. In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is best for the project in 10 years? I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years. Neither do I. But in exchange for every puny node you add today you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future. I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project) would be stupid, to say the least. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 18:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM As I've stated in the past, which you conveniently keep ignoring, over looking or misunderstanding... You are putting end users of the data ahead of contributors, imho that is selfish, you think end users are more important that the contributors, is your view being influenced because your company is such an end user? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. You seem to be sending your emails from OppositeLand, JohnSmith. The Contributor Terms, and specifically the relicensing term in term three are prudent because we know that it is impossible to know what license will be best for OSM in 6, 10 or 50 years. I think the general view is that the project is currently licensed under CC-BY-SA but that if you don't like it then you are free to fork. Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect. It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for a broken license, eh? The great thing about the current license is that there's no coercion. If you don't like it or the licensed doesn't work for your use case then you can just go ahead and start your own fork. That's what those who are in favour of ODbL should have done two years ago. Instead we now have this ugly mess which is set to string out for a very long time with continual disruption and damage to the project. That you assert that CC-By-SA is right for OSM now and will be the right license for OSM forevermore makes you the one claiming perfect foresight. That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. We have a responsibility to do the right thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. As others have pointed out, OSM-F expects contributors to trust it without putting any trust in the contributors... Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith? The OSMF trusts OpenStreetMap contributors. The OSMF _are_ OpenStreetMap contributors. The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM contributors JohnSmith? I think that you have demonstrated that you do not trust current OSM contributors. You treat them with what appears to be contempt. You won't even provide a bare minimum of context in your changeset comments for other OSM contributors. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, 80n wrote: Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect. But they are saying that it is unsuitable. It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for a broken license, eh? Rely on people's good intentions is not a general solution. The great thing about the current license is that there's no coercion. There's no coercion in the new licence or in the changeover. You are free to decline and to continue to pretend that BY-SA is a suitable licence for data. If you don't like it or the licensed doesn't work for your use case then you can just go ahead and start your own fork. That's what those who are in favour of ODbL should have done two years ago. You can't fork BY-SA to ODbL + DbCL, so this wouldn't be possible. If only the CT's had allowed it... Instead we now have this ugly mess which is set to string out for a very long time with continual disruption and damage to the project. Some people think it's being strung out, others think it's being rushed. Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. We have a responsibility to do the right Frederik's argument is entirely correct. We should empower them to do the right thing. thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. And we are doing the right thing now. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 18:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith? Can't figure out any better insults? The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM At least be honest about it, the CTs as they read now, basically state OSM is likely to become PD in future, I don't prescribe to the moral, and I would never have signed up to OSM if it had been anything less at the time. do not trust current OSM contributors. You treat them with what appears to be contempt. You won't even provide a bare minimum of Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. context in your changeset comments for other OSM contributors. Wow, that's the best you can do? How about mentioning the 10's of 1000's of change sets attributed to me to help improve the map, how about the 100s if not 1000s of dollars I've spent on fuel + GPS equipment trying to improve the map, how about the time and effort I spent submitting patches to improve JOSM, how about the time and effort I spent making apps for phones to help improve the map... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. Really? What will future generations want, 80n? I predict that future generations will want Flying cars sure, but we were promised those decades ago. :) On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data and OSM contributors are enthusiastic about it. You know perfectly well that OS opened their data in part because OSM changed the very ground on which OS stands. You know that perfectly well because you were and are part of making that change. The world will continue to change as will the world of Open Geo Data. OSM will continue to be part of making that change. And future OSM contributors will want to adapt to those very changes that they are making as well. We have a responsibility to do the right thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. Forks and relicensing will always be expensive for open communities. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and make it slightly less expensive for future OSM contributors to adapt to the changing legal environment around them by using a relicensing provision in term three. To fail to do so now is to leave a mess for future OSM contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 18:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data And how compatible will the CTs be with OS data exactly? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and compromise. Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed or not. But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. OpenStreetMap - It's Fun. It's Free. You can Help. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way of ensuring this than BY-SA The devil you know is better than the devil you don't At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible the ODBL is a really bad deal and neither should be accepted as being honest, moral or for the benefit of the project. That's a serious allegation and one not borne out by the facts. If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention very much. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and compromise. Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed or not. But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Cheers, Andy [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Firefishy#User:JohnSmith [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnSmitholdid=512994 [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/052736.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL Is this like all the laywers that think the ODBL is great too? about 12,500 contributors make up about 99% of the data, how many of those agree with your point of view, or is this a case of the view of a few hundred being extrapolated to the entire project? But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. Because dirty tricks have been employed all along, from abusing statistics to trying to discredit people that disagree. Although today they've gone off the charts... You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import You tried to discredit me by showing things in a very one sided manner, by making it seem as if the contributions I made weren't useful because I didn't bother to supply changeset comments, and you are still trying to belittle my contributions when we both know I'm in the top 100 contributors... data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. It's a tad difficult to defend ones self against such vague claims, maybe I should make the same claims of you without pointing out exactly what you did, can you prove you didn't? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:12:21 -0400, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I don't recall a poll or a survey where I've been asked if I want a license change and which license I want. I do know that people can currently accept the new ODbL license, but they are not asked to decline it if they want that, so you will not get the negative vote from that. I must agree with John's feel here: I've not been asked if I want it, I'm only asked to accept it or not. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Sock puppetry is not welcome here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29 A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. The rash of posts by Jane Smith and 80 m are examples sockpuppetry at its worst. If you care for this kind of thing, take it elsewhere. It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and most of all, it's not something we accept here. For the avoidance of doubt, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and pseudonyms. And if you disagree with the use of pseudonyms within our community, then take the matter up directly, rather than with such stupid mailing list posts as we've seen over the last few days. Let me remind you that legal-talk, like our other mailing lists, is here for constructive, positive discussion (and positive, constructive disagreement too), not for sending anonymous abusive emails to and/or regarding other people in the community. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] STOP Re: 80m Manifesto
On 1 September 2010 09:53, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote: PLEASE Indeed. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might distract people changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly Which minor edit(s) were mine exactly? never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Is that worst dirt you guys could dig up on me? No affairs with hookers, no affiliations with seedy underworld figures, no bribes to cops even, I'll have to remember to try harder in future... Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's really unbecoming. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Sock puppetry is not welcome here
On 1 September 2010 10:36, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29 A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. The rash of posts by Jane Smith and 80 m are examples sockpuppetry at its worst. If you care for this kind of thing, take it elsewhere. It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and most of all, it's not something we accept here. For the avoidance of doubt, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and pseudonyms. And if you disagree with the use of pseudonyms within our community, then take the matter up directly, rather than with such stupid mailing list posts as we've seen over the last few days. Let me remind you that legal-talk, like our other mailing lists, is here for constructive, positive discussion (and positive, constructive disagreement too), not for sending anonymous abusive emails to and/or regarding other people in the community. Comment greatly appreciated. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:38, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's really unbecoming. I'm mortified about the license change debate, I'm mortified that any grievances with the license change debate go un-addressed, I'm mortified that people feel that have to resort to muck racking to try and win a debate. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:22:12PM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Albertas Agejevas a...@pov.lt wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings, altitude data. Brushing away integration with other databases makes the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible. they can use the osm data. come one. They just have to make a package called osm-data and distribute it separately. that is like saying that the gcc makes your programs gpl. think again. But FlightGear, for instance, currently uses cooked scenery files, distributing OSM data separately is not an option. So it is not included at all. (I am not associated with FlightGear). Albertas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:59, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: My comments have nothing to do with the debate or any issues you Then perhaps you should have used another thread with a more appropriate subject line to avoid confusion? My comments are intended to address your disruptive behaviour on the wiki, in the database, and elsewhere. But you seem to relish the disruption and are continually Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions. But instead of apologising, or even acknowledging that you seemingly can't behave cooperatively within the OSM community, you carry on with your destructive behaviour. I find that quite unfortunate. So in other words you can't out right fault me as badly as you were hoping, and this is the best you could come up with ? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote: The OSMF are OpenStreetMap contributors. However OpenStreetMap contributors != OSMF because OSMF is a subset of contributors (although being a contributor is not a prerequisite, so this may not be completely true). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony schrieb: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later clause). Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org project? CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an and later clause. Where later, i.e. 3.0 explicitely does not apply to databases like OSM. So only one more reason for us to switch elsewhere. But we know that already. And ODbL is not in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL is in the same spirit as GFDL. That's your opinion, and anyone with legal knowledge in here seems to dispute both of those statements. But of course, you can't use a documentation license for creative works, a code license for documentation or a creative license for a mostly factual database - at least not reasonably. And that's what all our relicensing is about in the end. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Francis Davey schrieb: Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to certain exceptions. While that may be true, anyone not trusting the organization that operates all of the software and hardware of the project (the OSMF in our case) should not have contributed any data to the project as a whole in the first place. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I think When did you come to that conclusion, and why? Weren't you opposed to the license at first? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or unreachable by then, well, tough luck. - The après moi le déluge stance if you will. In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is best for the project in 10 years? I think you're right that it's a matter of different perceptions. What you're describing is the way copyright law works. If you feel that copyright is a moral right, then of course you'll have no problem with copyright holders being able to dictate what happens to their works, even 10 years in the future. The fact that contributors are giving any license at all is something to be grateful for. I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years. Neither do I. Well sure it's selfish. Would you prefer us to be self-destructive? Who are we supposed to be doing this for if not for ourselves? The fact that you don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years is a big part of the point. You yourself said that most people wouldn't want 2/3rds of the members of a fork relicensing OSM. If you're no longer an active member of OSM, what does it matter if it's 2/3rds of a fork or 2/3rds of OSM itself? If 10 years from now OSM is something that I don't want to support, I *want* them to be limited in what they can do with my contributions. But in exchange for every puny node you add today you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future. This is outright dishonest. The future OSM is under no obligation to do anyone's bidding. They simply need to follow the license *if* they want to continue to use my contributions. Now, I'm not going to defend the ODbL. I think it's a bad license, which imposes far too onerous conditions on reuse. On the other hand, most people seem to disagree with this. If you think the conditions of the ODbL are acceptable, then what's so bad about making OSMF eat its own dog food? I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project) would be stupid, to say the least. And I think it's stupid to give up your rights today just because someone claims (without argument) that not giving up those rights might possibly endanger some project in the future (a project which, as you say, you don't even know if you're going to be a part of). If OSMF worries that the current version of ODbL might be fundamentally flawed to the point where the project would be strangled 10 years from now, then they should 1) talk to the ODC about that concern, and get a commitment from them that they will fix such flaws in a future license version; and 2) add or any later version to the contributor terms (yes, that's in the license, but adding it to the CT would cover the possibility that there's a flaw in the or later version part of the ODbL). But personally, I think that's silly. The project is so much more than just the data. You've talked yourself about how easy it is to replace the data of people who don't agree to the switch. Now imagine how much easier it'll be with the technology we have 10 years from now. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
John, there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find something inappropriate. For example this: John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: The devil is in the details. CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print... is just unsuitable for a debate (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100% rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time. As for debate, your point has been made and understood: * Your No. 1 priority for OSM is to keep the data you and some of your fellow Australians have mapped and imported. * In your particular case, while most of that data is compatible, or could be made compatible, with ODbL, things are more difficult with potential future license changes (CT clause 3) Until here, you are probably not alone and your cause is understandable. While others in the same situation might take a more progressive stance and try to make things work, your conclusion has been: * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good enough in Australia). Even this is, while probably not the best option for the project overall, something you're not alone with. You've said it, your point has been made, no need to repeat it 20 times a week. But here things start to go wrong. You're screaming, you're kicking, you're accusing everyone of sinister motives, secret plans, evilness of all kind. You're crying foul, you're writing acid comments and getting personal on almost any mailing list you have access to. You're the no. 1 poster on legal-talk by a large margin, and your messages haven't had anything new in them for the last four weeks. For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing. My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it. So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be doing things wrong. I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition. You're trying to make a win or lose situation out of something that wasn't one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to win. This is a trait commonly found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful. In addition, but this has already been said by others, your behaviour in our online community is bullish and obnoxious, and if made aware of your mistakes you're just trying to make this into a new battle in which to stand ground before your friends rather than admitting it and making amends. JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your arrogance and general disruptive behaviour. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your endless scorn, I now have to read 80 m and Jane Smith as well, and I think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see some of it flung back. *Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates your claim of dirty tricks on the part of the people you don't agree with. I have no problem with debating the issues, Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it. Unike you, I have debated all aspects of re-licensing with various people for the last three years, and I'm willing to continue doing so, provided it occurs in a civilised manner - one of which, sadly, you do not seem to be capable. For you, this is not a debate but an ego contest. I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You, JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your audience. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps however (possibly this only means maps as images though) It is my understanding that they are talking about maps as images but IANAL. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps however (possibly this only means maps as images though) It is my understanding that they are talking about maps as images but IANAL. I'm not even sure what maps as images means. If a map is described in XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a map as an image? Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ef/Aeroway-helipad.png and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/cd/Bierkrug32x32.png) were omitted or placed in a different file. Just the lines (dashed/dotted/etc), the filled areas (colors or patterns), and the text were included. Is OSM a project to make maps, or a project to collect factual data about the world? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote: The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks. Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Well we try to answer questions as quickly as possible. Some answers depend on further meetings, others depend on replies from busy professionals. Some answers get lost in the mundane reality of day to day life. Here are a couple of answers for questions that were asked a few weeks back. Not your questions perhaps, but answers to community questions nonetheless. DRAFT http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_FAQ DRAFT As it says, this is a draft, so expect more answers over time. You ask again how much data loss is acceptable? And this has been answered before as, That depends on the local and global context of the particular data. I don't think that this question is unanswered so much as it is unanswerable. Of course every contributor will have their own opinion on how much, and on a particular piece of the planet that may hold more interest for them personally. That's not an answer either, but it does point out the Sisyphean scale of finding One True Answer to your repeated question. Your question regarding legal council suggests that the author of ODbL is the only lawyer that OSMF board have relied upon for advice regarding ODbL and the license change process. This is incorrect. So what you see as the biggest conflict of interest in the project does not exist. As a brief history of OSMF and lawyers, OSMF have had two different firms agree to provide legal advice for OSMF. The second still serve OSMF after taking over when the first firm was unable to respond in a timely matter. I thank both firms for their interest in OpenStreetmap and their support of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. The OpenStreetMap community as a whole, not just the OSMF membership, were invited to contribute to the drafts, release candidates and final version of the ODbL. The Contributor Terms were written by OSMF council at another law firm, not by the ODbL author. Other lawyers in several jurisdictions, from additional firms, have offered opinions at various times on various matters. You ask when the tools will be ready to analyse the impact of licensing questions. Largely the answer is the same as for questions about any software tool in any open project; they'll be ready when they are ready. As an alternative answer they will be ready when you write them. But flip answers are not really my style, so forgive my brief non-answer. During the LWG meeting this week, one participant discussed the tool they were creating. So some work on these visualization tools is proceeding. Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling should be considered for reversion if the owner chooses not to accept ODbL/CT, you should participate in that discussion. Is a simple import of data published elsewhere a contribution that earns the possibility of reversion or is it purely mechanical? On the other hand, we're also answering questions and revising text for additional clarity, and checking revisions with lawyers. So things will keep taking time. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 22:41, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I'm not even sure what maps as images means. If a map is described in XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a map as an image? Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ef/Aeroway-helipad.png and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/cd/Bierkrug32x32.png) were omitted or placed in a different file. Just the lines (dashed/dotted/etc), the filled areas (colors or patterns), and the text were included. Is OSM a project to make maps, or a project to collect factual data about the world? maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Whether some or all of the OSM is a map is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. The point being that image is not a UK copyright category, the main category is artistic work of which a graphic work is a subcategory one member of which is a map. Section 10 of the (Australian) Copyright Act 1968 does the same job (where the categories are artistic work/drawing which includes map). The Australians inherit their copyright law from the same source as we do in the UK and there is still considerable cross-fertilisation of ideas (the High Court of Australia being particularly respected here). I could go on but it would bore. I just wanted to make the point that images isn't a category much used in copyright definitions, unless referring to photographs/films and so on where the image is a recording of light - which a map isn't except indirectly. There's a conflict of authority in the UK over whether a work can belong to several categories at once. I don't mean whether a work can have elements that could be more than one class of work (like pictures in a book) but where the same creative content is both. For example a circuit diagram has been held to be a literary work (because it is written in the language of an electrical engineer) but also an artistic work at the same time. So, maybe something can be a map, a copyrightable database and a (sui generis right) database at the same time. Who knows. Sorry, its late and I am meandering a bit. The short point is: none of this is even slightly unproblematic. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/01/2010 10:17 PM, Liz wrote: 1. From where does OSMF get the mandate to choose the licence? OSMF mandate is to own and run the servers . I got that from the OSMF website. The OSMF's Memorandum of Association, which is the legal expression of the Foundation's purpose, states: 3. The objects for which the Company is established are: 3.1 OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. 4. In support of the objects, but not otherwise, the Company shall have power to do all things incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects or any of them. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Memorandum_and_Articles_of_Association 2. Why is a vote among ~300 people binding on a community of ~300,000 contributors, of whom ~12,500 are active mappers. If anyone believes they have a legally binding obligation to relicence their data they are mistaken. 3. Why does the OSMF use the advice of a lawyer who was party to writing the ODbL? I see there the biggest conflict of interest in the project. Good legal advice is independent, and the price should not involved in determinign whether it is good or bad. In my experience access to the author of a licence is a good thing. 4. How much data loss is acceptable to the pro-ODbL lobby? There is no pro-ODbL lobby. There are individuals and presumably organizations who support relicencing (however enthusiastically or reluctantly, and for whatever reason), but that support is not to my knowledge organized in any way or based on any hidden agenda. 5. When will the tools be available to see how much data worldwide will be removed? - on a world map, not a diagram. A more constructive project would be a visualisation of how long it would take to relicence or recreate the data, and details on how to do so. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 2 September 2010 05:14, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find something inappropriate. I've made several comments that you do like wise, you keep claiming this change is needed to make OSM more free, but that's dishonest because it will only make *END USERS* more free, but you continue you leave those words from your statement. is just unsuitable for a debate (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100% rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time. Oh that's even funnier when you later claim I take things out of context, it seems everything you acuse me of you end up just as guilty as committing the same crime. As for debate, your point has been made and understood: So why do you continually take me out of context and claim I'm against the license if you have understood my point? * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good enough in Australia). See there you go again... For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing. I can't seem to find your links... So it's a mystery to me as well... Also you continuously seem to avoid Anthony's question about why you changed your stance on the ODBL... My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean the current solution is a good one, in fact I doubt I'd get a valid answer to that either since you and others have invested so much time and effort you wouldn't admit your own mistakes. So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be doing things wrong. For someone that claims to want to debate license issues you turned this into a personal attack pretty quickly. I don't want to blame anyone, I just don't like the current solution and you seem unwilling to compromise at all. I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition. You're trying to make a win or lose situation out of something that wasn't one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to win. This is a trait commonly found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful. I see Dr Frederik, and what is your hourly psychotherapy rate exactly? You seem to need some of your own medicine at this point in time. JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your arrogance and general disruptive behaviour. You have a hide, you claim I'm the arrogant one, when you have very very loudly proclaimed to know what's best for the project, without even asking most current contributors. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your endless scorn, I now have to read 80 m and Jane Smith as well, and I think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see some of it flung back. So 2 wrongs make a right now? But of course you don't like it when you get asked inconvenient questions and instead of addressing those you go into a personal rant. Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it. You took things I said in your email out of context several times, but that seems to be something you do often already. I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You, JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your audience. So what about Anthony's question(s)? You don't seem to want to debate anything, you have a point of view and that's the only one that matters. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works are included as examples of copyrightable works, and maps are included under pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Whether some or all of the OSM is a map is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that a GIS database [is] essentially a computerized map and may be entitled to protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well (see Open Records Law, GIS, and Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). I just wanted to make the point that images isn't a category much used in copyright definitions Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'd certainly argue that maps, as used in that license, include GIS databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's comment that a GIS database is essentially a computerized map as evidence. Ultimately, if it became a matter of dispute, and judge and/or jury would decide, and we can only make educated guesses about whether or not they'd agree. On the other hand, it might not matter, as I'd also argue that the OSM database is a copyrightable compilation. As to that, Ms. Peterson Dando says in the context of copyright law, GIS databases are compilations which may be copyrighted. Finally, I want to be fair and point out that while (or even if) the OSM database is copyrightable, that doesn't mean the copyright on it extends very far. Again quoting Lori Peterson Dando, Even though a GIS database may be copyrightable as a compilation or a map, the protection afforded by copyright may be thin in light of the Feist and Mason decisions. To give a specific example, I'd say a routing database created from OSM data, suitable for running a shortest path algorithm and providing driving directions, would be completely public domain and non-copyrightable, in the US and in many other jurisdictions. And that, I'd say, is a flaw in CC-BY-SA. Because it means someone in a sui generis database rights jurisdiction could take OSM, make a routing database out of it, improve that routing database, and then sue people under database rights law for using those improvements. At least, under CC-BY-SA 3.0, I think they could. Yes, the ODbL fixes that. Unfortunately it fixes too many other things, that weren't broken in the first place. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 2 September 2010 03:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works are included as examples of copyrightable works, and maps are included under pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Whether some or all of the OSM is a map is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that a GIS database [is] essentially a computerized map and may be entitled to protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well (see Open Records Law, GIS, and Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). I just wanted to make the point that images isn't a category much used in copyright definitions Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'd certainly argue that maps, as used in that license, include GIS databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's comment that a GIS database is essentially a computerized map as evidence. I'd argue that in a big part this may be a result of the changed meaning of the word map and not the intent of that law. Some decades ago it was very difficult to create a map that didn't include a great deal of interpretation of facts and creativity, or at least expertise, but today it's possible to extract just the factual part and store in a database with just a little bit of interpretation which can be accounted to errors or artifacts of digitisation, all this without knowing more than using a gps. I wonder how much you can abuse this to get protection of copyright, for example by building something of which your database is a map and then claiming copyright. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling should be considered for reversion if the owner chooses not to accept ODbL/CT, you should participate in that discussion. Who's going to make the decision? After the decision is made, will there be a vote? Will it be run past the OSMF lawyers, and if so, when? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote: If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. +1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
