On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
>>> But that doesn't mean that "their" content won't show up in a future ODBL
>>> map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer m
So there won't be a problem if on day X the version of John Smith will
be removed from the database and on day X+2 I would enter one of the
versions I've shown, right?
Right, under the assumption both cannot be copyrighted,
not even under OdBL, being *fact*.
If they *are* copyrighted, no you
On 2011-07-09 18:02, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Andreas Perstinger
This way:
and one of the ways I've posted before,
and a Mapnik excerpt showing this way,
and for example a written way description ("On the last junction before
Kempsey Airport take the ro
On 2011-07-08 16:14, Anthony wrote:
You're all missing the point, though. My contention is not that OSM
is a database of non-geographical facts (*). My contention is that it
consists of the *expression* of facts.
Just do be sure that I don't misunderstand you again:
This way:
user="JohnSmith
On 08/07/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
>
> And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about
> the location or presence of a road that makes it "motorway" or
> "tertiary". That is only because it is designated as such. That
> designation can c
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Maarten Deen wrote:
>> Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
>> of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.
>
> Sure they are.
>
> If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a "no entry"
>
ry. And so on.
I realise that other countries have different conventions that may not be so
closely tied to signs, but they should always be tied to observable facts. I
don't usually cite the wiki, but
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiable .
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in c
On 08/07/11 10:31, Maarten Deen wrote:
>
> IMHO that's stretching the "geographic" bit very far. Sure, the fact
> that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that
> signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention.
> And highway value is certainly not geo
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Maarten Deen wrote:
Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.
Sure they are.
If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a "no entry"
sign at a
ce
On 2011-07-08 09:10, Maarten Deen wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database "just reproduces geographical facts"
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me
imum speeds, and certainly over here,
highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative
boundaries.
cheers
Richard
[1] ok, and also the fact I get shouted at when I cycle up it the wrong way
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-lice
Geo-referenced facts?
And, all of your examples other even less potential to be a protected
work than your typical way.
Simon
Am 08.07.2011 09:10, schrieb Maarten Deen:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM d
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database "just reproduces geographical facts"
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a
non-geographical fact in the d
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database "just reproduces geographical facts"
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a
non-geographical fact in the database.
Bye, Andreas
On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
+1
/2
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
+1
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 7 juli 2011 19:55
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger
On 2011-07-07 19:55, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
But that doesn't mean that "their" content won't show up in a future ODBL
map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but
perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node
On 2011-07-07 08:48, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Andreas Perstinger
wrote:
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think
map content is pr
On 2011-07-07 09:35, 80n wrote:
Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments
about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good
faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have
not agreed to the CT have not consented
On 2011-07-07 08:39, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Andreas Perstinger
No (see above). But I think it's more a question of morality and adhering to
community guidelines. Legally I don't see any problems using informations
from any map (or aerial imagery).
But using informati
On 2011-07-07 08:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork".
I know who "John Smith" and his fellows are and I even read their
m
cetest @ fosm.org
Van: 80n [mailto:80n...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:36 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm
wrote:
Simon,
Andreas,
all
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon,
> Andreas,
> all,
>
> when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of
> "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time
> building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork".
>
> The forkers, as I like
Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid
getting sucked in to his endless threads.
But it was 2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated
book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I
needed a short break :-)
Simon
Am 0
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage,
> their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data
> deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for
> starting a fork in the first pl
Simon,
Andreas,
all,
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork".
The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of
motivations, the most be
On 7 July 2011 16:45, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
> But I've just showed you that there are countries where this is clearly not
> the case. Don't you have any case rulings in Australia about copyright in
> maps? I've found several in Austria and Germany so it would be surprising if
> these countries
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
> That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
> bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think
m
On 2011-07-06 23:31, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole wrote:
> Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters)
> which doesn't make it recent,
> but still twice as old as copyright law.
>
> The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not
> moral as you imply.
Ho
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable
letters) which doesn't make it recent,
but still twice as old as copyright law.
The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation,
not moral as you imply.
Simon
Am 07.07.2011 02:12, schrieb John Smith:
On
On 7 July 2011 10:10, Simon Poole wrote:
> In terms of laws, sure.
Well copying wasn't much of a problem until the invention of the
printing press, which according to you was relatively recent as well.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetm
In terms of laws, sure.
Am 07.07.2011 02:08, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole wrote:
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
I didn't know the late 1800s was considered "rather rece
Am 07.07.2011 01:56, schrieb Anthony:
...
There certainly is creativity involved in making a brick wall.
Choosing a herringbone bond vs. a stretcher bond, for instance. And in
some cases it can be copyrightable - not if it's just a herringbone or
a stretcher bond, but if the pattern is unique
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
> which are rather recent
> and had nothing to do with morals.
I didn't know the late 1800s was considered "rather recent"
___
legal-ta
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
Simon
Am 07.07.2011 01:54, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole wrote:
Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse
Am 07.07.2011 01:40, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole wrote:
That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
the data they
contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take on it would be
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole wrote:
> Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it
> for creativity
I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things
down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the
morally right thing to
Am 06.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Andreas Perstinger:
BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that
a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically
here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just
reproducing geographical facts like t
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole wrote:
> That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
> the data they
> contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
> jurisdiction and so
> on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical pu
Am 06.07.2011 20:31, schrieb John Smith:
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
[] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use
in the digital era,
You were talking about databases, however databases can still store
copyrightable content
On 06/07/2011 21:04, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Dave F. wrote:
If one of these gets moved then the whole way gets updated,
No.
Substantively, that is what happens, but technically, in the database,
it is not.
In the database, we go from:
to:
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Google in addition have their ToS.
So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to
another person who is only bound by copyright ...
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreet
2011/7/6 John Smith :
>> Unofficial Translation: "Reproducing of geographical facts which one gets by
>> surveying (for example the course of a mountain range, a river or a street
>> or the location of a locality) in a map isn't protected by copyright
>> (Urheberrecht)"
> So you are planning to co
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
> No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
> a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
> map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for
> IMHO that's a very weak prot
On 2011-07-06 22:17, John Smith wrote:
Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this?
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone
retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at
the current OSM map or by just moving r
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
> But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider
> any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright?
Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this?
Which is of course the real issue, c
On 2011-07-06 20:23, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith wrote:
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792,
152.728383561) wh
On 06/07/2011 18:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Dave F. wrote:
I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a
complete waste of time.
It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing
something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;)
in
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith wrote:
> On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
>> Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
>> started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792,
>> 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
> Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
> started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792,
> 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the
> Bing background and traced
Hi,
Dave F. wrote:
I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a
complete waste of time.
It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing
something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;) in
this case you are indeed missing (or I fai
On 02/07/2011 17:15, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags
on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not
accepted the CT, while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license
change?
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:17 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing
Sorry for replying late but I had to leave for the night shift yesterday.
On 2011-07-05 15:28, John Smith wrote:
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
What do you consider as "same result"? How far away do I have to place a node?
If I put one additional node into the way or remove
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and
re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from
incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and
pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean?
Nothing. But assuming good fait
Hi,
John Smith writes:
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So
for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way,
i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object.
The position of nodes are often
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world
> can be classified as creative work,
> as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his
> effort, and any deviation is just imperfecti
se.
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: David Groom [mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net]
Verzonden: dinsdag 5 juli 2011 16:46
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
> - Original Message -
> From: "
---Original Message-
From: "David Groom"
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:51
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
- Original Message -
John Smith writes:
> On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote:
> > But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of
> > anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but
> > has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states th
- Original Message -
From: "Jaakko Helleranta.com"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith
wrote:
T
On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote:
> But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of
> anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but
> has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no
> clue of what
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith
wrote:
> The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes.
>
"Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever
known." (1)
and hence the secret of
"Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" (2)
O
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So
> for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way,
> i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object.
The position of nodes are often derived from the positio
2011/7/2 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it.
> Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT,
> while B has.
>
> Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license
> change?
>
> You co
Frederik,
On a related note, what if
Mapper A has traced a road from (now) uncompliant imagery.
Mapper B has surveyed the road but had decided to leave A's hard work in
place and just add the road's name.
Mapper A now decides to withdraw from the OSM project and not relicence his
contributi
On 3 July 2011 02:15, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it.
> Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT,
> while B has.
>
> Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license
>
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags
on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not
accepted the CT, while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license
change?
You could say: yes, because version 2 is
70 matches
Mail list logo
