Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Hi again, The inevitable data cleaning comes closer and closer, therefore I want to rise the issue again before it's too late (with the new knowledge I got from Simon's answers). In short, I used old database objects (which were imports from sources incompatible with CT ODBL) to enter entirely new data into OSM (IDs and some key-value pairs stayed the same). The new data are in commits marked as CT-compatible. It appears that the automated cleanup process is going to remove that kind of data. My question is: how to preserve the new data? I believe that the fact that I surveyed the objects myself and ignored all existing positions/tagging breaks time-continuity of the objects, and therefore their old license. Is it acceptable for me to wait until cleanup is finished, extract that kind of contributions and re-commit them? It's very unlikely that the original author of the imported data is going to relicense it. As much as I love contributing to OSM, I don't think I'm going to have the same willpower again to turn a blank 40x40km area into something useable. I don't want to sound negative, but combined with the fact that imports (which I consider a defining characteristic of open-source projects) are much harder now than a few years earlier, I might abandon OSM if this gets thrown away. I'm writing all this precisely because I don't want this to happen. Cheers, rhn The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object. However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've seen from your examples is that you actually imported the data yourself and at least some of the original tags have survived. Note that the data would actually survive the redaction process at this point in time, but naturally you shouldn't have agreed to the CTs in the first place. The preferred way to proceed would be for you to get permission to release the data you imported under the ODBL from the original creator in the UMP project, as you probably know there is an effort under way to organize exactly that in Poland. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:43, schrieb rhn: Three different examples; all of them were remapped verified in respect to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? Cheers, rhn If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely we would need to see some examples. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: Hello, Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list. Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only changeset). This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with WMS and traces. The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle). My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to access CC data after the license change? If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? Cheers, rhn ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view, is that it be interoperable with the ODbL. I recommend that people define compatible and interoperable thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in different contexts. GNU GPL compatibility, for example, basically means derivatives of the work can be covered by the GPL. Having read the current 4.0 draft (and IANAL), I think SA 4's proposed database right copyleft clashes with the ODbL's: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt Section 2 – License. (a) Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to: [...] (3) where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above, extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work, [...] Section 3 - License Conditions. The rights granted in Section 2(a) of this Public License are expressly made subject to and limited by the following conditions: [...] (c) ShareAlike. If you Share an Adaptation, (1) You must release it under the terms of one of the following: (i) this Public License, [...] I will raise this on odc-discuss. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:08 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft) On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view, is that it be interoperable with the ODbL. I recommend that people define compatible and interoperable thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in different contexts. GNU GPL compatibility, for example, basically means derivatives of the work can be covered by the GPL. Having read the current 4.0 draft (and IANAL), I think SA 4's proposed database right copyleft clashes with the ODbL's: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt Section 2 - License. (a) Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to: [...] (3) where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above, extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work, [...] Section 3 - License Conditions. The rights granted in Section 2(a) of this Public License are expressly made subject to and limited by the following conditions: [...] (c) ShareAlike. If you Share an Adaptation, (1) You must release it under the terms of one of the following: (i) this Public License, [...] I will raise this on odc-discuss. It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works under a non-free license. This may be justified - after all, there is the case of the GPL and LGPL where each license has their place. If this happens, it would be nice if the next version of the ODbL allowed for ODbL-licensed databases to also be distributed under CC by-sa, like the LGPL allows you to modify and distribute the modified version under the GPL ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works under a non-free license. I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be stronger than what CC does. Say I use an ODbL database to run a public route planning service, then I will have to share that database. Under CC-BY-SA until now I would have had to share the end result (eg web page displaying route instructions) only, not the full database. In ODbL terms, you publicly use the database and therefore trigger share-alike for the whole database even if in the course of the individual case of one planned route only a fraction of the database actually reaches the end user. CC 4.0 says for share-alike if you share an adaptation, you have to release it under ...; question is whether, they, like ODbL, would define your routing service as sharing the adaptation which is the database, or if in CC's case the adaptation is only the web site with the route instructions... 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] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
On 04/07/2012 07:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works under a non-free license. I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be stronger than what CC does. But CC 4.0 also *appears* to allow intermixing unlicensed work in a way that either 3.0 didn't or didn't make obvious (the 4.0 licences are much easier to read...). I intend to discuss this on cc-licenses. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
