[OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
Hi It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't agreed to the new license. I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam, -- /emj ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:57:57 +0100, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't agreed to the new license. I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam, Is that what prompts people to send messages to total strangers to accept the ODbL? I've received 4 of those already and yes, they are quite annoying. One was even so read in that he could claim that soon my edits would be deleted. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
Hi, On 11/24/2010 10:57 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't agreed to the new license. I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam, Are you sure this has something to do with JOSM? I mean, we've been saying it for half a year now on EVERY wiki page (OSM is changing its license...) and it's been on the JOSM startup page for quite a while now. Is it not likely that what you're seeing is the effect of a much more recent development, namely maps like http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ where people can see which areas have been edited by people who haven't yet agreed to the CT/OdbL? I would not want people to send messages to total strangers but if it is someone from an area where you have edited a lot, then I can understand that if they find a large section of his city or quarter not relicensed that they become concerned and send you a message. - When I map somewhere, I know that this might result in me being contacted by total strangers, i.e. other members of this project who care for the place I've edited. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 11/24/2010 10:57 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't agreed to the new license. I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam, Are you sure this has something to do with JOSM? I mean, we've been saying it for half a year now on EVERY wiki page (OSM is changing its license...) and it's been on the JOSM startup page for quite a while now ... I would not want people to send messages to total strangers but if it is someone from an area where you have edited a lot, Yes I'm sure it has to do with JOSM, and it seems like you think it should continue? As we all know very few people care about the license, and even if they don't care it is this message in JOSM makes people send me a mail that is 4 sentences long stating Hey your data will be deleted if you don't press ok. /Emj ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Database copyright arises when the database is the author's own intellectual creation. That means that some design or creativity has to have gone into the database - it can't simply be an assemblage of facts. Database right arises when there is a substantial investment. It focuses on work not creativity. Lots of work in making a database won't get you copyright but may get you database right. It is much more likely that OSMF attracts database right than database copyright. Thanks for clarifying this. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
Erik, Erik Johansson wrote: Yes I'm sure it has to do with JOSM Why are you sure? Have they told you so? I still don't see what it is about JOSM in particular that is a problem. As I said, the license change is advertised in many other places too. I don't think we should stop informing people of the upcoming license change just because this makes some people send messages to others. It's not that JOSM says please write messages to everyone who hasn't yet signed up. and it seems like you think it should continue? On the whole, I think it is better if people are asked to relicense by a fellow mapper than if they get an email from OSMF. Of course I wouldn't like to get several such emails per day either. The problem we currently have in this regard is that you cannot publicly make a final decision no, I won't relicense and I'm ok with my data being replaced. Thus some people, when finding lots of red areas, might decide to write an email to the mapper in question (maybe he simply hasn't yet heard of the license change). Once we have such a public no, certainly not option, the same mapper can simply start fixing the red stuff rather than wasting time with emails. 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] JOSM and spam
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Erik, Erik Johansson wrote: Yes I'm sure it has to do with JOSM Why are you sure? Have they told you so? Yes. And I'm very disappointed that people think mass mailing is ok, it's not informing people in any useful way. My proposed action list is this: 1. remove spam inducing JOSM blurb 2. move to phase 4 3. give the finger to all people anti ODbL The current action list is currently the same but start at number three and go up. /Erik anti ODbL, but so fed up with the change process. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 09:30, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: 3. give the finger to all people anti ODbL At least you are being honest, which is more than Frederik seems to be capable of, you don't make any pretense that there was ever any kinda of democratic process going on and the whole thing is a sham and a white wash to push through what ever agendas are in play... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). [citation needed] / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). [citation needed] You could have found it faster than replying to that email... http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22lie+of+omission%22 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: How charming that you use selective quoting to fabricate a lie of omission. Viewing the original shows no lie. And that your fabrication failed to gain traction the first time you trotted it out. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html You are entitled to your anonymity and your pseudonym. Even though it wraps your every word in a lie of omission. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 02:22, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or anybody else to stand up for him. Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of omission). [citation needed] You could have found it faster than replying to that email... http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22lie+of+omission%22 Are you being seriously? To call Frederik a lier based on this email? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html Quoting from: http://blog.nestoria.co.uk/geofabrik-wins-the-best-elevator-pitch-award (State of The Map 2010) Geofabrik was voted and acclaimed as the Best Elevator Pitch. Voters appreciated the straightforward business proposition: pay me money to save to a lot of time. Frederic delivered an *impressive and honest pitch* and this was reflected on the poll count. emphasis my own. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On 25 November 2010 12:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: How charming that you use selective quoting to fabricate a lie of omission. Viewing the original shows no lie. And that your fabrication failed to gain traction the first time you trotted it out. Nice attempt at distraction, but it doesn't refute the point that he didn't tell the whole truth and was at least a little deceptive about the whole thing. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html You are entitled to your anonymity and your pseudonym. Even though it wraps your every word in a lie of omission. Are you planning to call anyone that ever used a pen name a liar as well, at least I'll be in good company I suppose... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. [GG] I agree with that, and no facts can be protected by any law. Creativity is used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create the halo around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik stylesheet. [GG] as you say, the style sheet is protected, and possibly the resulting map (paper, png or jpeg). I personally think that the result (a graphic map) has not the same level of creativity, nor protection, as the method (stylesheet). Regards, Gert Gremmen Regards Grant ___ 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
