Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Frederik. I think it's a bit ungenerous to suggest that getting open address data into OSM constitutes "hijacking" the project. This kind of data is obviously useful to many people. It's also obviously relevant to OSM, as the project already contains and even renders it in its base style. And of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Martin, On 10/14/2015 11:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > frankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open > addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if > open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has > addresses, I'd not

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> He’s clearly not suggesting that. > > He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking. If I misunderstood, I apologize. Frederik's

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Tom Lee wrote: > > > He’s clearly not suggesting that. > > > > He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do > > that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change > > the license or we won’t do

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Tom looks like I misread Fred a little, apologies. Steve > On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Martin, > > On 10/14/2015 11:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>frankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open >>addresses that could be

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Tom Lee wrote: > > Frederik. I think it's a bit ungenerous to suggest that getting open address > data into OSM constitutes "hijacking" the project. He’s clearly not suggesting that. He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

thank you Michal, I see it now. I have finally discovered that I cannot contribute much to this list and apologize for having caused disruption from time to time, I'm unsubscribing, see you on the other lists ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

2015-10-13 21:08 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > rankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open > addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if > open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has > addresses, I'd not be opposed to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:18:43AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-10-13 21:08 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > > > rankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open > > addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if > > open addresses become

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but that cogent argument thing you mentioned is missing either way. I and many others have been investing considerable energy into the OpenAddresses project because of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Tom Isn’t the problem one of imports? The debate on importing 200M points would be entertaining. Steve > On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Tom Lee wrote: > > > I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good > > enough. Of course, I also want it to be

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Hi, On 10/13/2015 06:12 PM, Tom Lee wrote: > Obviously, not all of those 200M points belong in OSM. But many of them > do. OpenAddresses does not have the toolchain or community needed to > improve and maintain that data. ... > I want to do that work once in OSM, not a hundred times in a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Certainly that's a related issue, but it's one with solutions. OpenAddresses is not monolithic; its 1400+ individual datasources would need to be evaluated individually and in concert with local mappers. In some cases it might be appropriate to perform automated imports; in others it might make

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

apbox.com>> Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>> Date: Monday, October 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

er folding it." > -Steven Wright- > > From: Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com <mailto:a...@mapbox.com>> > Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." > <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>> > Date: Monday, October 1

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Alex Barth wrote: > Fixing the license surely can't be the extent of our plan, but we need > to be able to have a frank conversation about how licensing is hurting > use cases and engagement on OSM, without second guessing > people's intentions and without just showing them the door to > TomTom

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > At the time, no-one was doing serious geocoding off OSM data - it wasn't > good enough. I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Am 12.10.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Mr. Stace D Maples: > .. > Neither of the projects was scrapped because we /couldn’t/ use OSM for > the project, but because we couldn’t determine IF WE COULD use OSM for > our particular uses. > > ... And you or your legal department approached the licensor of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

uot; <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>> Date: Monday, October 12, 2015 at 1:19 PM To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Propo

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Could we please get back on topic? Neither the pros and cons of share-alike, nor use cases in which the data is not publicly used, nor alternative licensing schemes, nor mumbo-jumbo from conference sessions is the subject of this discussion. Please feel free to discuss any of the above in

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > If you want all these rights, you can just pick up the phone and pay HERE > or TomTom for them, they’d love to hear from you. What's more interesting than sending people to HERE and TomTom is making them contributors to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

For those readers that are not well versed with wikis, I just wanted to point out that some points have been raised on the discussion page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_Metadata_Guideline I personally would prefer if feedback was given here, but obviously using the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Steve Coast > wrote: > If you want all these rights, you can just pick up the phone and pay HERE or > TomTom for them, they’d love to hear from

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

I designed a license concept that’s relevant as an alternative way of thinking about this: http://stevecoast.com/2015/09/30/license-ascent/ On a different note: It’s a false dichotomy to compare OSM and Public Domain, it’s really about comparing buying a proprietary map (which the OP

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Allow me to gently suggest that we try to keep this thread grounded in concrete concerns. I am always up for some flag-waving about sharealike versus PD, but I think it would be best housed in a new thread or the talk list (it's a general enough principle that the larger community deserves to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Michael thanks for the feed back it is very helpful. Anybody else with input? IMHO we might do away completely with a negative (as in share alike invoked) example because of the issues this has caused and undoubtedly will continue to cause. Simon Am 02.10.2015 um 18:31 schrieb Michael

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Simon et al - First of all, hello! I started a few months ago as in-house counsel at Mapbox. I come from the U.S. gov (FCC) where I did a lot of work, among other things, on opening FCC geodata to the public. I've had to focus on other things in my first few months, but am looking forward to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

(initially sent from from address, sorry) Hi, On 10/02/2015 06:31 PM, Michael Steffen wrote: >> ~~=== Examples of where you DO need to share your non-OpenStreetMap data > >> ~~* you own a database of restaurant star ratings, you publish a product >> ~~that provides one dataset that uses ratings

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Hi, I'm deliberately taking this out of the geocoding context here to make a point regarding the mixing of OSM and non-OSM data: On 09/23/2015 01:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: > mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs > should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. What we'd like to avoid is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright: > What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " > Again: it is just a hypothetical example. Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be sensible (just imagine

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Martin, Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important user of ODbL (with

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Hi, this is not the right group to discuss the matter but let me just say that your statement On 09/22/2015 10:57 PM, Tom Lee wrote: > It's dismaying to see the landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a > better legal > home (or at least partner) for all geodata, including new

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On 2015-09-22 16:26, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:58 PM Tom Lee wrote: > Martin, > > > Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal > point of view, how it should be interpreted? > > > Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important > use cases.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread as stipulations that company XYZ is violating the licence. Could we pls have some comments on

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Please unsubscribe. Please. I don't know how to login. On 9/22/15, 5:27 PM, Simon Poole wrote: Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

I've added a clarification to the example in question as it is causing some contention. Simon Am 22.09.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Simon Poole: > > Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright: >> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " >> > Again: it is just a hypothetical example. > >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > One of the big grey areas remaining wrt our distribution licence is > defining if, and how you can link from external data to an OpenStreetMap > derived dataset. Nailing this down is, in my opinion, key to progress in >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text, because every additional word is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Am 22.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a > legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? Please read the introduction to the proposed guideline. > > I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Am 21.09.2015 um 14:01 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > I don't believe that the restaurant star rating is a good example, as > we don't rate restaurants ourselves, I'm using a hypothetical, but "in principle could be possible" example on purpose for the negative scenario. > and copying the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

2015-09-21 12:43 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > I have to say that I'm not completely happy with the document as is, > however nobody has come up with anything better. It will definitely need > some more examples in a final version. > I don't believe that the restaurant star rating