[OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
Sorry, I have accidentally pressed the enter button before writing my text. That's the technical disadvantage of an old-fashioned mailing list! Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by decliners or non-responders. This would be detrimental for long routes, as I have calculated for some selected routes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Data_Loss There is no contributor who has ever contributed even a 50% majority of nodes on these routes. However, they would be destroyed by deleting those nodes which have been created by decliners or non-responders. It would make sense to consider the whole route or even the whole network (e.g. rail network) as an entity (joint work as described in German and many other copyright laws) which should not be destroyed by granting an intellectual property right on each node! -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
Hi, On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by decliners or non-responders. That is correct as far as I know. There is no contributor who has ever contributed even a 50% majority of nodes on these routes. However, they would be destroyed by deleting those nodes which have been created by decliners or non-responders. The assumption that an 11,000 node route is destroyed when a few hundred nodes are removed from it is however *not* correct. The route just becomes less precise, or in the worst case it may have a few holes here and there where a way was lost. But even that does not destroy a route. Your argument about joint authorship does not work because the person combining these bits into a country-spanning route has usually done so without the knowledge of the individual contributor who has just mapped a little stretch of road. That's like saying that Popstar #1 has to allow Popstar #2 to distribute his work because they both appeared on a sampler created by a third entity and that sampler now constitutes a jointly authored work. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
Hi, On 11/23/2011 06:22 PM, 80n wrote: I don't see how it could be in anyone's interest to taint the map by leaving in nodes that could, just possibly, be claimed to infringe someone's rights. I part agree, part disagree with that. I don't think that our bar should be no data that could, just possibly, be claimed to infringe That would be too high; even today, under CC-BY-SA, we have a lot of data where people have claimed infringement and the claims have turned out to be insubstantial. I think the bar must be no data that could *reasonably* be claimed to infringe But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and therefore if the original contributor does not agree to the license change, we should remove this data. It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It didn't take long to create in the first place ... when we had a fraction of the community we have now, less accurate aerial imagery and no secondary data sources to compare against. Re-mapping not only removes the license baggage, it also has the potential to improve quality. I agree - let's rather invest a little more work now and have a solid foundation for the future, than build on sand just to get it done quicker. 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] The detrimental effects of database
It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It didn't take long to create in the first place ... when we had a fraction of the community we have now, less accurate aerial imagery and no secondary data sources to compare against. Re-mapping not only removes the license baggage, it also has the potential to improve quality. I agree - let's rather invest a little more work now and have a solid foundation for the future, than build on sand just to get it done quicker. I was going to say something in the same vain. So I'll refrain from doing that. I do have a suggestion to help identify which tags/properties are the ones contributed by somebody who declined or who can't be reached. Now I have to go an dig in the history to check who added names and other properties, when recreating ways and nodes. I'd prefer for this time consuming task to be automated. Is there a way to accomplish that? I understand the full history of an object is needed to do it, so it'be supplementary to what the license change plugin does already. Maybe you could point me in the right direction in the JOSM code and I could try to do it myself. I would need to know how the history is stored after it is DL'ed and where; how I can fetch it programmatically. Jo ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
80n wrote: It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It didn't take long to create in the first place and remapping it is going to be a lot of fun isn't it? Yep, exactly. It's actually surprisingly easy, especially with features such as railway lines that are easily visible in Bing. I've been doing a bunch of remapping recently in an area where the original mapper has indicated they're never going to agree to the CTs. A moderate area can be polished off very quickly and there's a satisfying feeling as you see the little red lights go out. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-detrimental-effects-of-database-tp7024478p7025537.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
On 24 November 2011 05:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this Which would be derived from cc-by-sa, so it'd still be under copyright. action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and Perhaps you should test this theory by copying content from wikipedia, indenting it to the left one metre. Also placement of nodes aren't a fact, they are an interpretation of facts. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and therefore if the original contributor does not agree to the license change, we should remove this data. Yes, I agree. But if there once were 4 nodes stretching over 30 km (I'm slightly exaggerating), tagged just highway=tertiary, and now these initial 4 nodes became 500 nodes or 5000 nodes, distributed now in 20 different ways with lots of attributes, routes running over them, etc., how much of the initial 4 nodes is still there? Just bad luck for us? Or is there a limit where original rights have fainted? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
