Re: [Talk-transit] Line diagrams
On 30 August 2010 18:34, Steffen dido_...@web.de wrot [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/13639 Why are the bus stops in the relation above separately mapped as a node (IMHO correct), and yet again as a platform? -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 29 August 2010 23:41, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote: Eric Jarvies Sent from my iPad On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no rights. Let me try to clarify what I am saying: Whether or not someone contributing data to OSM has any IP rights in that data, or whether the OSMF (or anyone else) can exercise any rights over data that has been included in OSM or indeed the whole of OSM, depends on (i) jurisdictional questions and (ii) the nature and quality of the data. There are relatively complicated questions of copyright law at work. The fact that the courts have been deciding questions on copyright in compilations/databases illustrates this. But that's not important for what I'm saying. If OSMF can us IP rights to stop people using part or all of OSM in any particular jurisdiction then you don't need any additional protection (you already have it). In my example Y could be restrained by injunction or otherwise pressed to stop. As I understand it the desire of the new licence scheme is to supplement IP protection by using a contractual mechanism. It answers the questions: what do we do about jurisdictions where there is no protection? Some places are generous about copyright (England for example has a really low threshold of originality in general, and so before the database directive was about as generous as they come) but others are not. Some places have a specific database right (like the EU) but most don't. So one of the points that seems to be in issue is whether there needs to be a contract style protection or not. People seem to be asking do we need this?. My point - in answer to someone who suggested it might just be an implementation detail - is to try to explain that it isn't. The contract bit of the new licence won't protect you in the same way as copyright law + licensing does. It has no automatic way of applying sanctions to third parties like Y in my example. Sure *if* Y can be stopped another way, then great, but the contractual element is not needed. I'm not arguing that using contractual protection is wrong or ineffective. My vague impression is that lawyers were asked to come up with something to fill the gap left by the lack of legal protection for databases in some places, and this is what they came up with. I suspect that it is pretty much the best you can do. And its not quite as bad as all that. If Y and X collude to get the data out, the fact that Y is not a contracting party may not help them. Most jurisdictions have protections against that sort of thing (eg as conspiracy or tortious inducement of breach of contract in English law) but mileage varies even more as you might imagine and it makes things more difficult. The USB drive example is a good one because X and Y would not be connected (though of course Y would probably be a thief, or at least a tortfeasor of some kind, in taking the stick). I have a deep academic and professional interest in the copyright and other legal questions raised by what you are doing, which is why I read and occasionally contribute to discussions on this list. I'm not myself a mapper and so have no right to try to influence what you do. I hope no-one objects to my occasional comments. All I am trying to do is inject some legal clarity as much as I can. Of course its generally not a good thing to be doing legally interesting things, but take heart from the fact that people have been litigating copyright in maps one way or the other for centuries. There's an early 19th century case in which our Lord Chancellor was surprised that you could copyright a map (after all - its just factual information about the world where's the originality in that?) but conceded that the weight of authority was that you could. When I was preparing a talk on copyright in images I wanted to illustrate it with a map of the area in question and of course OSM so thanks for that. Y has everything to do with the data, in the context explained above. The point is; it is already difficult(and expensive, time consuming) to defend rights on said data, it will become even moreso. A slightly sharper way of putting it is that using the additional protections given by contract may add complexity to any legal action you take. In practice its usually nice to have more causes of action to plead, if done well it can put the frighteners on the defendant. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: ...why should the onus of forking be on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who should fork are those for CC-BY-SA 2.0. because the license change is not going to work in the first try. Technically you need a beta test phase. never change a running system. Get it running first, dont break what we have already. mike What you said doesn't require a fork in the normal sense of that word (which implies splitting off part of the community and not using the original name: OpenStreetMap). If majority of the OSM community favors changing the license, then that project on the new license is still OpenStreetMap. It's definitely not a fork at all. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Am 29.08.2010 17:52, schrieb Rob Myers: The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they exist. OSM will be no different. Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just fine. Joerg *) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Someone in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD and to what he likes. I think this is less realistic when many companies¹ either operate internationally or do business with other companies who operate internationally. If there is no single law, then we can just extract the changes again back in usa and put them back in no? Then it is a two way street. You could, but then you would make the situation confusing in jurisdictions that do respect rights on the data. Copyright and database right does not simply go away with the act of removing the work from the database and putting it back again. ¹I’m assuming business to make writing about it a little more succinct, but the “Someone” in Frederik’s post could really be anyone. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote: Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just fine. *) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1) Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle, or prefer GPL 2 to GPL 3, or cannot upgrade even if they wanted to. The Linux kernel is a good example of all three. The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an argument against allowing relicencing. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an argument against allowing relicencing. There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that are merely an extension of the existing license, than changing licenses, that is going from GPL to BSD... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote: You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all, to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map data. You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court cases that demonstrate that it isn't. You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its own authors. That's before you start considering all the various government data released under copyright licenses. Are you saying all their lawyers have no clue about copyright laws, or that the governments themselves The law in one of those various (sic) jurisdictions is still in flux. And if government IP lawyers are the same as most corporate IP lawyers they wont have a very good grasp either of the limits of copyright or of alternative licencing. Francis's post supports this. OSM is a global project. What is correct for one government in their own jurisdiction may not be correct for another. aren't able to change laws to make map data copyrightable? If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be a good idea? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its own authors. I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to ensure the data is kept is to stick with the current license... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Am 30.08.2010 12:03, schrieb Rob Myers: On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote: Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just fine. *) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1) Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle, or prefer GPL 2 to GPL 3, or cannot upgrade even if they wanted to. The Linux kernel is a good example of all three. The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an argument against allowing relicencing. Even if you don't consider the changes from GPL v2 vs. v3 to be subtle (which were just an example anyway, I could have picked several other examples) you will have to concede that those changes don't fundamentally change the spirit of the license. But this fundamental change is what's currently at stake with section 3 of the CTs. Joerg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 11:06 AM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an argument against allowing relicencing. There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that are merely an extension of the existing license, than changing licenses, that is going from GPL to BSD... The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL 3 was seen as a major change. The GPL 3 was a major change in order to meet major changes in the threats to free software. The meaning and requirements of distribution, the nature of enforcement, what is covered by the licence, and the law it is based on were all changed. But these changes were all to ensure that the GPL does what it is intended to, they were changes in method not intention. The or later version licencing of most GPL 2 projects meant that the change was possible where it was felt to be worthwhile. Which is now for the majority of projects. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote: If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be a good idea? This is a new concept on the list, that OSM starts negotiations with governments over licensing of map data (assuming not owned by government). Is this a real concern of anyone else? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL 3 was seen as a major change. No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and spin it anyway you like, GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not revolution ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 11:28 AM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL 3 was seen as a major change. No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and spin it anyway you like, I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not revolution If you could explain this to Linus Torvalds I'd be most grateful. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You are trying to claim that open ended relicensing is a good thing, but at the same time you think trying to relicense a major project like linux from GPL to BSD would be unwise, but that's effectively what is being attempted here with the new CTs... That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence. If you could explain this to Linus Torvalds I'd be most grateful. What's so hard to understand, software patents weren't an issue when the GPL v2 was published, but were later on which is why they Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet* distribution. Or non-US law. Or... attempted to address the issue, just like cc-by-sa v2 doesn't seem to cover database rights, but cc-by-sa v3 does... Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0 doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it doesn't cover DB right) . - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence. *If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very low barrier for change to occur. We can't just agree to the ODBL we have to take the poison of the CT with it... Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet* distribution. Or non-US law. Or... Stick to the comments made, not what you wish they were... Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0 doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it doesn't cover DB right) . It doesn't effect me, I'm just repeating what others have told me, they seem to be of a different opinion... I believe CC-by-SA v2 also allows you to also use country specific cc-by-sa licenses, so take your pick on that, the outcome is the same... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 30.08.2010 12:16, schrieb John Smith: On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its own authors. I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to ensure the data is kept is to stick with the current license... That's not correct. The Data will be kept in the last CC-By-SA Planet which is still part of the OSM project. You are right of course that the data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map the regional and rural areas that every keeps claiming will be so easy to get re-mapped... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run the servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking be on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who should fork are those for CC-BY-SA 2.0. It all depends on what exactly you mean by the word fork. You could very well say that there is going to be a ODbL re-licensing fork, it's just that the one hosted by OSM would change to be that fork rather than the existing data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective against such an attack. I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response about it. Consider for example if someone in the US[0] takes the ODbL-licensed planet dump provided from OSMF, and creates a North American extract of it, and makes that extract available (under ODbL) from their website. Another person/company in the US downloads that extract and uses it in a way that violates the ODbL. What can we do to enforce the ODbL? Since the US doesn't have database rights, we can't use that part of ODbL. Since copyright doesn't cover the OSM data (don't reply arguing just about that) in the US, we can't use that part of the ODbL. So the only way of enforcing the license would be through the contract parts. However the contract (if one even exists, which is arguable) would be between the person making the extract and the person using it, how can anyone other than the extract-creator enforce the license? There's also the issue that when the person hosting the extract makes it available, there is nothing forcing them to make it available in such as way that a contract would be formed. Host a copy of the planet or an extract for people to download with just a link, and I would think that you'd get a contract of adhesion at best, and that concept doesn't exist in some places. IANAL, etc - James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point importing, the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey english copyright law. no? No, people are bound by the copyright law where they are or use the data. For example if someone wants to sue me for violating copyright, they'll have to do it under Australian law. The only thing where England comes into play is that the Contributor Terms specify that they fall under English law. The ODbL deliberately doesn't contain a choice-of-law clause. If there is no single law, then we can just extract the changes again back in usa and put them back in no? Then it is a two way street. No. For example there are books which are out of copyright in Australia (due to length of time since publication) but still on copyright in the US. If I use that now public domain work to create something new in Australia, I can't give it to people or sell it in the US without the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. It's fine if I only distribute it places where the book's was out of copyright, but not if it goes to places where it's still in copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 27/08/2010, at 1:36 AM, Anthony wrote: Or you could just assign the task of deciding what it means to someone. Whether or not a future license is share alike shall be determined by a vote of the OSMF board. Sure, except I don't know that will really help. If people want certainty that all future licenses will have certain conditions, then presumably they'd want that in legal form, i.e. in the contributor terms. I highly doubt there are enough people in OSMF (and among the active contributors) with such lack of integrity that a switch to a PD-like license could occur under those conditions. I agree. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. Others do, at least, aside from fixes to the license which are propagated by the originator of the license (License X or any later version). I meant we as a community don't know what we'll need in future to reflect out wants. Various groups of people have opinions on that, but I don't think that we can say the OSM community agrees on what we want to happen in 5 or 10 years. With all the trust that's being put into ODC's lawyers, I'm surprised there isn't more trust that ODbL 1.0 or any later version published by ODC will be adequate. +1. If we want the ability to relicense to fix problems, ODbL's upgrade clause should (I would hope) be enough. If we want the ability to do a relicense other than to fix problems, we're probably not going to want to be bound by what it contains. Consider for example if OSM had originally had the CTs along with the CC-BY-SA license. I would argue strongly that we couldn't then re-license to ODbL under the CTs because ODbL's version of share-alike isn't what people would have assumed it meant when they signed up. And you'd probably lose that argument (even though I'd agree with you). ODbL has been sold as a sharealike license from the get go, by Steve, by the LWG, by the statements attached to the poll... I was surprised they got away with it, but they did. If you could successfully argue that, couldn't just as easily argue that it would allow a change to one that doesn't require Derived Databases to be under the same license? That is what I assume most people want a share alike requirement to actually mean. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 12:09 PM, John Smith wrote: On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence. *If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very low barrier for change to occur. We can't just agree to the ODBL we have to take the poison of the CT with it... This is getting a bit dramatic. Or DRM. Or P2P distribution. Or, by the letter of GPL 2, *internet* distribution. Or non-US law. Or... Stick to the comments made, not what you wish they were... The comment made ignores the full extent of the changes made to the GPL and thereby misrepresented the change as being less major than it is. The point I was originally trying to make is that *you* may regard the switch from GPL 2 to GPL 3 as minor, but *some* people don't. Wrong and wrong. A couple of the EU 2.0 licences covered DB right. 3.0 doesn't (it just mentions DB copyright in order to make clear that it doesn't cover DB right) . It doesn't effect me, I'm just repeating what others have told me, they seem to be of a different opinion... Then they are wrong AFAIK. I believe CC-by-SA v2 also allows you to also use country specific cc-by-sa licenses, so take your pick on that, the outcome is the same... Not for data released under a country licence that covers DB right. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 08/30/2010 01:09 PM, James Livingston wrote: On 30/08/2010, at 3:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote: It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for projects of non-profit foundations. It can yes, however there are a lot of developers who refuse to work on projects that require it, so it's a trade-off you have to make. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a cost to requiring assignment. (I have one or two patches I've submitted to various projects which are sitting unapplied because I didn't realise they required assignment) Yes that's a fair point. I'd argue that it depends on the project. I've signed a couple of GNU copyright assignments but I wouldn't sign an Ubuntu one. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
2010/8/29 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. Not at all, I never consider that OSm would move to an incompatible contract system and away from copyright/copyleft. That idea is totally alien to me. I have trusted that OSMF would treat the old data as valuable, if they don't, then it is not my problem. actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): At the time of writing (spring 2008), you are encouraged to read up on the relicensing process currently being considered by the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and consider how your import may be affected if we proceed with a move to the Open Data Commons Database Licence http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Import/Guidelinesoldid=83702 cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): At the time of writing (spring 2008), well spring isn't in March (here) spring starts shortly so whoever wrote that was a little careless. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): At the time of writing (spring 2008), well spring isn't in March (here) spring starts shortly so whoever wrote that was a little careless. due to the fantastic wiki-software I was nevertheless able to derive the date when this note was amended. cheers, Martin btw.: The imported dataset seems to be this one (I followed a link in the wiki): Source: 25k Topographic Map Map: VGI (Vojno Geografski Institut Jugoslavije) Yugoslav Military Geographic Institute Years: 1970's and early 80's Classes: No classification (categorization) Features: Line Feature Class Coverage: about ~50% - 60% 30 year old uncategorized roads derived from 25k topographic maps. I am aware that this is better than nothing, but it is IMHO not at all an argument against the license change. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: How does one decliner-changeset in the middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further position changes? I'd say usually it shouldn't. I'd be pretty okay with the following rules, from a copyright standpoint. First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it anywhere in the history, delete the node. Then go through all the ways: If a way references two or more nodes, keep it. Otherwise, delete it. Ditto with relations s/nodes/elements. Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification. Now, after you've done this there's likely to be some really weird stuff in the database. A node might have been reused such that a way contains nodes on opposite ends of the earth. Some sort of algorithm would need to find this type of stuff and delete it and/or tag it for further review. Finally, I'd like to mention that some people don't agree with this algorithm. They feel an even stricter one should be used. But as far as I'm concerned I'd say this is legitimate. The fact that a POI merely exists is not and should not be subject to sharealike (*). It's the positioning of nodes, and especially the positioning and shape of the ways that should be subject to sharealike. (*) Ironically, part of the point of the ODbL is to add such provisions, but without being at least a little bit hypocritical you're not likely to have much of a database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it anywhere in the history, delete the node. Then go through all the ways: If a way references two or more nodes, keep it. Otherwise, delete it. Ditto with relations s/nodes/elements. Hmm...then again, maybe this won't work. There needs to be a provision where an accepter taking and moving an entire way doesn't cause the entire way to become accepted. That would reposition all the nodes. But it doesn't change the shape of the way. Hmm...not sure how to fix that without causing a lot of complications... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it anywhere in the history, delete the node. Then go through all the ways: If a way references two or more nodes, keep it. Otherwise, delete it. Ditto with relations s/nodes/elements. Hmm...then again, maybe this won't work. There needs to be a provision where an accepter taking and moving an entire way doesn't cause the entire way to become accepted. That would reposition all the nodes. But it doesn't change the shape of the way. Hmm...not sure how to fix that without causing a lot of complications... I was thinking about that, as it would leave an opportunity for bot-control Could the system look at the history up to May 2010 and then decide? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it anywhere in the history, delete the node. Then go through all the ways: If a way references two or more nodes, keep it. Otherwise, delete it. Ditto with relations s/nodes/elements. Hmm...then again, maybe this won't work. There needs to be a provision where an accepter taking and moving an entire way doesn't cause the entire way to become accepted. That would reposition all the nodes. But it doesn't change the shape of the way. Hmm...not sure how to fix that without causing a lot of complications... I was thinking about that, as it would leave an opportunity for bot-control Could the system look at the history up to May 2010 and then decide? Not sure bots are the only problem. In Potlatch you can easily drag around entire ways, either on purpose or by accident. I've probably done this a few times myself (both on purpose and by accident!). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification. What's the identity of the tag though, is it the key and value pair? Since you mention modification I suppose you mean just the key. I'm not sure if tags can be treated this way, for example the natural=wood and landuse=forest are often exchanged even though they have a different key, so after running the algorithm you may end up with both or none. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification. What's the identity of the tag though, is it the key and value pair? Since you mention modification I suppose you mean just the key. I'm not sure if tags can be treated this way, for example the natural=wood and landuse=forest are often exchanged even though they have a different key, so after running the algorithm you may end up with both or none. Yeah, I was thinking the identity was the key. And yeah, after you've done this there's likely to be some really weird stuff in the database. I was mainly looking at it from a copyright standpoint. The backward convoluted database you'll wind up with after removing the copyright infringements, well, they're the reason you shouldn't be switching the license in the first place! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst of both worlds, PD and share-alike. And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike, and EULA hell. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote: You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all, to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map data. You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court cases that demonstrate that it isn't. What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has copyright. Yes, there are some court cases that say that there isn't copyright in phone books. But, correct me if I'm wrong, there are none that say there isn't copyright in electronic maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote: You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all, to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map data. You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court cases that demonstrate that it isn't. What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has copyright. Yes, there are some court cases that say that there isn't copyright in phone books. But, correct me if I'm wrong, there are none that say there isn't copyright in electronic maps. copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is what we workers should control. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): At the time of writing (spring 2008), For me, I heard about the new license, but never considered that this new license would be incompatible. yes, I was negligent in understanding this important fact, but I find it also a bad idea (no compatibility). anyway, I don't fully understand the new license and really, being conservative, I will wait until it works and then jump on the boat later. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote): At the time of writing (spring 2008), well spring isn't in March (here) spring starts shortly so whoever wrote that was a little careless. due to the fantastic wiki-software I was nevertheless able to derive the date when this note was amended. cheers, Martin btw.: The imported dataset seems to be this one (I followed a link in the wiki): Source: 25k Topographic Map Map: VGI (Vojno Geografski Institut Jugoslavije) Yugoslav Military Geographic Institute Years: 1970's and early 80's Classes: No classification (categorization) Features: Line Feature Class Coverage: about ~50% - 60% 30 year old uncategorized roads derived from 25k topographic maps. I am aware that this is better than nothing, but it is IMHO not at all an argument against the license change. that is just one file of many. we have other imports as well. more coming. thanks, mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to in turn claim any sort of copyright on their own work, not to mention all the bad press they would get from it. There is one legitimate fear, though. Some company in an EU state can extract the non-copyrightable parts of OSM (*) and add it to their database which is protected under the sui generis database right, thereby subverting the principle of sharealike. As far as I can tell, this is still possible under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported. It's almost certainly possible under CC-BY-SA 2.0 Unported. If the license change fixed that, and only that, without fixing a dozen other non-problems, I'd be in favor of it. Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced Works and Contributor Terms and Contract Law. (*) Some will argue this is all of OSM, some will argue this is part of OSM, but I think pretty much everyone agrees that some of it is non-copyrightable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
I second that. Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just causing problems. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced Works and Contributor Terms and Contract Law. hear hear, finally a good idea! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:55 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I second that. Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just causing problems. I use fake account yes, like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. Fake fake fake. We have to protect our names to protect our wives and children and followers in legal battles. I will use real name if yous do. Troll? I just express opinions with integrity honesty. Just like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. We know the truth and we will work on OSM-fork to prove the connections. Silencing will be cencorsing. You cant censor the Truth about the license that we all know. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ 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
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Beautiful maps for a travel blog reviews site
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Joe Richards geojoeli...@gmail.com wrote: Unique colours/look and feel - we already have that, but perhaps it's time to give up our own map rendering engine and look at Mapnik etc. We can create a tile server, although obviously avoiding so would be desirable if it can be done without causing too much impact on any one source server (perhaps we can retrieve and cache tiles) mapnik is going to needs its own server for rendering. no way to put that on the main server if you have any load. mapnik is very very hungry. mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Notifications for objects touched by a given user
Does anyone know if there is an easy way for a user (A) to receive notifications (either by email or by some API query (RSS or Atom results best, but any XML format would do)) for objects that have been changed that the user (A) has at one point touched? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Notifications for objects touched by a given user
On 30 August 2010 08:59, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there is an easy way for a user (A) to receive notifications (either by email or by some API query (RSS or Atom results best, but any XML format would do)) for objects that have been changed that the user (A) has at one point touched? Nothing that does exactly this, that I know of, but there is a couple of other mechanisms listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_monitoring . Earlier you could choose the exact set of objects to monitor through Xapi -- I don't know if this works anymore, the mentions of it on the wiki have apparently been removed in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Change_monitoringdiff=399481oldid=353178 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Xapidiff=381275oldid=381074 Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Really, I am not worried about data integration, but getting data. It does not bother me that other people cannot just take my work and use it under a different license. My purpose in creating a map is just that, to create a map, to share it, to work with others to create a good map. Integration with other maps is not the purpose or the goal. I think this is a really narrow-minded stand. Many things, especially in the IT sphere, found their use far beyond those intended by the original authors or inventors. Limiting the access to the information to merely getting the map makes it just a bit more open than conventional paper maps. Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings, altitude data. Brushing away integration with other databases makes the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible. Albertas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 29/08/2010, at 19.35, Russ Nelson wrote: I've re-thought this, and I think that the proper course of action, which will do the least damage to the community, is to stay with CC-By-SA. First, because all the data in OSM is already licensed under that license. Second, because it will do minimum damage to the community (the discussion here is evidence that the community WILL be badly harmed by relicensing). Third, because if the worst thing that happens is that the CC-By-SA turns out to be unenforcible, then the data will be in the public domain. For the reasons I listed above, that's not a bad thing. Community first, license second. Thank you! I agree completely. I have no set opinions on one license vs. the other. I think that ODbL is probably more appropriate license, and that would be the one to use if the OSM project was started today. However, I see the license change as very disruptive and not good at all for the communtiy. Not because of one license is better than the other, but because of the disturbance it creates in an otherwise enthusiastic and industrious community. I can live with CC-By-SA... I really don't care that much. Changing the license at this point in a successful project is like building a houise, and then deciding you want to change all the bricks because you don't like the colour of the old ones. Perhaps it is true that the house is not as pretty as it could have been, but it is a hopeless endeavour, full of problems and without much gain. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 17:35, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: However, I have spoken with Steve Coast, founder of the project, and I know that he is dead-set against public domain OSM data. Thus, the second best thing to do, if you're going to threaten to sue infringers, is a license that clearly spells out what portions of the data they can use freely, and what uses are considered infringing. The ODbL does a good job of lining that out, and so I recommend that you relicense to it. That reads like SteveC's personally against it, therefore we have to do something else. I'd hope the legal process isn't that cabal like in practice. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
To me, the primary benefit of a free license is that the project has a 'life of its own' beyond the host: if the host decides to stop hosting it, or letting people edit, someone else can continue it as it had been. I don't care about the viral effects of such a license except insofar as they ensure that the project can't be 'locked-up' if enough people want it to continue. But said continuation is not a good thing if it's more of a forking, with two projects continuing where one had been. Such a forking splits the community and produces two inferior projects in place of one better project. And when the reasons for the license change are all about the other effects of the viral license, and being able to control how others use the data, rather than keeping the project going, I can't see it as a good thing given the effects it will have. This is why you should vote 'yes, I agree to relicense my data, but no, I don't agree with the change'. Too bad you can't do such a thing. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475468p5477403.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:13, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: To me, the primary benefit of a free license is that the project has a 'life of its own' beyond the host: if the host decides to stop hosting it, or letting people edit, someone else can continue it as it had been. I don't care about the viral effects of such a license except insofar as they ensure that the project can't be 'locked-up' if enough people want it to continue. I think this is an argument for Public Domain. As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open: - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual contributors?) - with ODbL, you'd have to ask OSMF, which will be the owner of the data. Please correct me if I'm wrong. - Chris - ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30 August 2010 19:36, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual contributors?) Only if you wanted to change licenses, which is why OSM-F is asking people to relicense... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote: As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open: - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual contributors?) - with ODbL, you'd have to ask OSMF, which will be the owner of the data. That’s the whole idea of having a licence: Without a licence, you would have to ask for permission. A licence explicitly gives permission (providing certain conditions are met), so if you you can work within the licence you already have permission. If you want to do anything the licence does not give permission for, then you would have to ask. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Chris Browet wrote: As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open: cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475468p5477534.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Chris Browet wrote: As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open: cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks Ok, thanks. And it would still be possible under ODbL, would it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Chris Browet wrote: cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks Ok, thanks. And it would still be possible under ODbL, would it? Yes, for the data that is relicensed from cc-by-sa. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475468p5477581.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks Also note the number of successful Wikipedia forks. The situation around licence changes is a big limitation of existing open licences. Presumably future licences will include some kind of meta-licence, where you both licence your contributions under the current licence, and explicitly allow some future mechanism to relicence them. Going back and asking contributors for permission is never, ever going to be practical. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks Also note the number of successful Wikipedia forks. Sarcasm, eh? There'd probably be at least one big one if the WMF-hosted Wikipedia died out for whatever reason. That's one benefit of free licensing - a backup plan should the original host die. The situation around licence changes is a big limitation of existing open licences. Presumably future licences will include some kind of meta-licence, where you both licence your contributions under the current licence, and explicitly allow some future mechanism to relicence them. Going back and asking contributors for permission is never, ever going to be practical. We could always wait until all the Disney heirs die... Actually it might be good for a free license to specify a short term of copyright (and contract and whatever else one chooses to use to lock up data), making relicensing easy that specified number of years after the start of dual licensing. But it's too late for that, and this is pretty much legal talk rather than general talk, so I'll shut up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] timed access restrictions and Mapnik
Hi all, We recently had a bridge temporarily removed for the SAIL 2010 event in Amsterdam[1]. I tagged it access=no with date_on and date_off time restriction tags as suggested on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, hoping it would be picked up by Mapnik as well. It turns out it is not and the road is still rendered as a no access road even though the date_off is over a week ago. This discourages tagging temporary access restrictions - could we make it so that it does take date_on and date_off into account? Martijn [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7043188 (since retagged) martijn van exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness - impatience - hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] timed access restrictions and Mapnik
On 30 August 2010 21:52, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: We recently had a bridge temporarily removed for the SAIL 2010 event in Amsterdam[1]. I tagged it access=no with date_on and date_off time restriction tags as suggested on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, hoping it would be picked up by Mapnik as well. It turns out it is not and the road is still rendered as a no access road even though the date_off is over a week ago. This discourages tagging temporary access restrictions - could we make it so that it does take date_on and date_off into account? Due to the nature of caching tiles it doesn't seem feasible to think temporary tagging would be handled in the way you think it should, however I do expect routing software might be a better place for these types of things to be dealt with. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] timed access restrictions and Mapnik
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 August 2010 21:52, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: We recently had a bridge temporarily removed for the SAIL 2010 event in Amsterdam[1]. I tagged it access=no with date_on and date_off time restriction tags as suggested on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, hoping it would be picked up by Mapnik as well. It turns out it is not and the road is still rendered as a no access road even though the date_off is over a week ago. This discourages tagging temporary access restrictions - could we make it so that it does take date_on and date_off into account? Due to the nature of caching tiles it doesn't seem feasible to think temporary tagging would be handled in the way you think it should, however I do expect routing software might be a better place for these types of things to be dealt with. While you can't take browser caching into account, in my experience the main tile server manages to keep tiles updated fairly well these days - good enough for one-off (non-repeating) access restrictions with a day resolution to be rendered accurately. Martijn martijn van exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness - impatience - hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] timed access restrictions and Mapnik
On 30 August 2010 22:06, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: While you can't take browser caching into account, in my experience the main tile server manages to keep tiles updated fairly well these days - good enough for one-off (non-repeating) access restrictions with a day resolution to be rendered accurately. Check the dev list, other people don't see tiles refreshed in a reasonable time period due to high loads... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes generally
On a similar topic... What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly? Thanks, Brendan On 30/08/2010 12:05 AM, Nakor wrote: Please do not run automatic merge tools in the US. Doing this you will connect entities that should not (e.g. river with road). This is due to the source of the imports that have duplicate nodes for different type of entities. If you want to fix duplicates in the US you need to review your changes one by one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes generally
Brendan Morley-3 wrote: On a similar topic... What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly? In general, there's no problem. However many specific cases of duplicate nodes are problematic, for example when roads should be connected at a node, but instead each ends at a different node at the same location. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Duplicate-nodes-in-the-US-tp5475019p5477977.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes generally
What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly? The only time they are an actual problem is when the map data does not represent reality - when a roads cross in a physical intersection, but in OSM only have 2 nodes at the same location instead of a shared node, or a closed polygon in which separate starting and ending nodes are physically at the same point, rather than using a single common node per OSM convention. Other than that, some people have viewed duplicate node elimination as an effective way to minimize the planet size and have actually damaged the data by incorrect node merges. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes generally
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.auwrote: On a similar topic... What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly? They are created when you import data from a source that does not use our way-node model, esp. when the import is done in stages, e.g. at the borders of US counties. And the problem is that you can't route over them. Or you are not supposed to route over them. My routing engine merge those nodes during the compile phase and then does route over them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] timed access restrictions and Mapnik
When was this discussed? I do scan dev but missed this - again, in my experience, tile updating is quite snappy. Martijn martijn van exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness - impatience - hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 August 2010 22:06, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: While you can't take browser caching into account, in my experience the main tile server manages to keep tiles updated fairly well these days - good enough for one-off (non-repeating) access restrictions with a day resolution to be rendered accurately. Check the dev list, other people don't see tiles refreshed in a reasonable time period due to high loads... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] timed access restrictions and Mapnik
On 30 August 2010 22:36, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: When was this discussed? I do scan dev but missed this - again, in my experience, tile updating is quite snappy. Sorry, my original post was to dev, the second thread was on the talk list: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/053091.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Then mark the reasons it's not suitable. We have this same discussion with cycling (in fact, Peter Miller had an entire presentation on this issue at SOTM09 - he just suggested the wrong solution :-) ). One persons unsuitable for motorcycles is another person's fun and games. So if the problem is that there are steps, then mark the steps. If the problem is that there's a massive chasm with a log over it, then mark bridge=yes width=0.25m surface=log maxweight=150kg (or similar!). Mark the stepping stones as stepping stones. In short, mark the facts that lead you to think it's not suitable, and leave the judgement to the producers of the map as to what they think is appropriate for their particular audience. This solution sounds appealing, but is totally impractical. Recording the information you cite is orders of magnitude more work than recording a simple yes/no. It's probably too late for any useful solution to arise, but I think it's possible to define sensible meanings for suitable. I ride a bike, and I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing between what's suitable for a road bike, a hybrid, or what is really a mountain biking path. You could easily have a scheme like: bicycle=no mtb=yes Meaning, this is not a practical way for the average cyclist to travel. Moreover, even with all the information you suggest tagging, I honestly don't even know what the end user would do with it all. Something somewhere has to boil it down to a yes/no. Your GPS isn't going to deal with it, so the logic has to be up stream. By far the best person to make a judgment call is the person who mapped it. A path that sounds perfectly suitable for cycling due to its tags might turn out to be crap for all kinds of reasons: slippery roots, blackberries, poor drainage, lots of blind corners, boardwalks with wide gaps aligned with the tyres. So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 30 August 2010 17:24, Albertas Agejevas a...@pov.lt wrote: Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings, altitude data. Brushing away integration with other databases makes the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible. Which makes the assumption that those other sources of data can freely be mixed. Which is not the point. While OSM cannot control the license of those other imagery, DEM, and building models, OSM can make it possible for its own data to be freely mixed, which ODbL enables (due to the distinction between produced works and derivative databases) and which CC-BY-SA cannot. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote: So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes generally
2010/8/30 Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com: Or you are not supposed to route over them. My routing engine merge those nodes during the compile phase and then does route over them. and how does it determinate, that the 2 nodes are really one, and it isn't disconnected on purpose? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
Hi All, I think the use of the existing tagging schemes for bicycle suitability is the way to go - no point inventing another scheme. One that I would like to use though is a scale for wheelchair accessibility. I envisage a scheme along the lines of the mtb one where you could have the range: a. paved path, suitable for self propelled wheelchairs. b. A rough (maybe gravel) path for a fit user of a self propelled one, or a fit pusher. c. Passable with an 'off road' type of chair. d. for some sections the chair needs to be carried (over stiles etc.), so only suitable of the user can walk. e. not worth trying! I think we might need some finer grained assessment of c, because as my son gets bigger (or I get older!) I am finding I give up on more tracks than I used to... Does anyone know if there is such a scheme in use already, or would we need to invent a new one? Thanks Graham. On 30/08/2010, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote: So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes generally
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/30 Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com: Or you are not supposed to route over them. My routing engine merge those nodes during the compile phase and then does route over them. and how does it determinate, that the 2 nodes are really one, and it isn't disconnected on purpose? It doesn't, so it's a bug. But it's extremely unlikely that it will ever have any impact on the user. You will e.g. need a double decker bridge that was surveyed with high precision DGPS equipment and then you can't use Potlatch. The variables I'm using have 10cm resolution. So it's a bug that has become a feature. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
I don't know if there already is such a scheme, but it makes sense to me. In addition to tagging the trail as a whole, it would also make sense to tag any particularly difficult sections, such as using the incline= tag on steep sections, and width= on particularly narrow sections. This would allow a wheelchair user to realize I can reach point X on the trail, but will then have to turn back. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway,trail? From :mailto:grahamjones...@googlemail.com Date :Mon Aug 30 10:41:10 America/Chicago 2010 Hi All, I think the use of the existing tagging schemes for bicycle suitability is the way to go - no point inventing another scheme. One that I would like to use though is a scale for wheelchair accessibility. I envisage a scheme along the lines of the mtb one where you could have the range: a. paved path, suitable for self propelled wheelchairs. b. A rough (maybe gravel) path for a fit user of a self propelled one, or a fit pusher. c. Passable with an 'off road' type of chair. d. for some sections the chair needs to be carried (over stiles etc.), so only suitable of the user can walk. e. not worth trying! I think we might need some finer grained assessment of c, because as my son gets bigger (or I get older!) I am finding I give up on more tracks than I used to... Does anyone know if there is such a scheme in use already, or would we need to invent a new one? Thanks Graham. On 30/08/2010, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote: So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: That reads like SteveC's personally against it, therefore we have to do something else. I'd hope the legal process isn't that cabal like in practice. Here's the thing: a BDFL, to retain his authority, must be careful not to make arbitrary decisions based on his personal feelings. So when SteveC says that he's against public domain, I trust that he's speaking for the project, not himself. Yes, I realize that thare are wingnuts who are in favor of the public domain, being one myself. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Russ Nelson wrote: Second, because it will do minimum damage to the community (the discussion here is evidence that the community WILL be badly harmed by relicensing). We'll lose people whichever way it goes. I guess, for example, that Etienne might not contribute to an ODbL-licensed OSM. Similarly, if OSM decides to stay with CC-BY-SA, I will leave the project. That's why forks are good: people can choose to contribute to the project that most closely fits their beliefs. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475468p5479454.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30 August 2010 12:11, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks Ok, thanks. And it would still be possible under ODbL, would it? ODbL is share-alike too, so yes. And I started to think some time ago, that such a fork will make a lot of sense considering the facebook-style Contributor Terms osmf wants people to agree to. It would be a place for all the people that want share-alike and all those that use sources that want share-alike, like those tracing from Nearmap and a number of import sources, one of which I have used. The OSMF would be able to include all this data in their planet snapshots and make accessible through OSM API, and it wouldn't diverge from the main database. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:34 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote: On 30 August 2010 12:11, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks Ok, thanks. And it would still be possible under ODbL, would it? ODbL is share-alike too, so yes. That is not true as 80n has shown. It's an anti-thetan license with pseudo GPL clauses and is Racist against Australians. And I started to think some time ago, that such a fork will make a lot of sense considering the facebook-style Contributor Terms osmf wants people to agree to. It would be a place for all the people that want share-alike and all those that use sources that want share-alike, like those tracing from Nearmap and a number of import sources, one of which I have used. The OSMF would be able to include all this data in their planet snapshots and make accessible through OSM API, and it wouldn't diverge from the main database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] State of the Map 2011 - Call for venues
Hi all, Summer is almost over in the northern hemisphere (sorry to break the news). Time to start thinking about where the 5th edition of State of the Map will be held next year. The call for venues is open at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2011/Bid Submit your bid before October 15th. SotM11: let's go to Well, that's up you all Cheers, Henk Hoff SotM11 organizing team ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 31 August 2010 06:51, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: That is not true as 80n has shown. It's an anti-thetan license with pseudo GPL clauses and is Racist against Australians. While some love to keep confusing the issue and keep saying that most speaking out are against the ODBL, this isn't completely untrue and they know it, the majority of problems lie with the the new Contributor Terms... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:05 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 31 August 2010 06:51, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: That is not true as 80n has shown. It's an anti-thetan license with pseudo GPL clauses and is Racist against Australians. While some love to keep confusing the issue and keep saying that most speaking out are against the ODBL, this isn't completely untrue and they know it, the majority of problems lie with the the new Contributor Terms... John you and I know the truth Enough of this System. We must rise up and take control from the puppet foundation which taken from 80n. Enough of Frederik controlling what I can map. We must burn his Books. As 80n has said - how can we stop this legl things? We know the means of control. We must take it back. Nobody will stop us now the truth of the legal is on this list and nobody is disagreeing with us. Then we will control map. The truth that no vote. The truth that all controlled by legal group. The truth that 80n is our True leader. We should demand that osmf give control to 80n. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Jane Smith is probably the same person as fake Steve C. Lynch 'em. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: Jane Smith is probably the same person as fake Steve C. Lynch 'em. No I am concerned mapper like You who doesn't want to use real name. We should not lynch anyone apart from those who are killing the map with the 'new license' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Mapping party Utrecht geslaagd
Ik ben ook nog niet klaar met de Poi's; 'k was weg afgelopen week. 'k Zal het je melden. Op 22 augustus 2010 20:24 schreef Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org het volgende: Ja, ondanks de dreigende luchten met 14 man. IMO goede opkomst :) Artikel op blog: http://blog.openstreetmap.nl/index.php/2010/08/22/mapping-party-utrecht-groot-success/ Verder heeft ZMWandelaar ons allen uitgenodigd om, in tegenstelling tot de vieze stadsgeuren, frisse boslucht in te snuiven in Putten. Dit gaat eind oktober gebeuren, dus mooi op tijd voor de herfstkleuren. After-kaartje gaat morgen wel worden gemaakt, want nog lang niet alle PoI's zitten erin. Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Mappen in Putten
Nog 5 dagen en dan zal de definitieve keuze voor de 3de Mapping Party 2010 worden gemaakt. Mappen in Edelhertendorp .. Putten dus. Alle gegevens vind je op http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Netherlands_Mapping_Parties_2010#Putten Heb je zin en wil je nog mee kiezen link dan door naar: http://www.doodle.com/bh7suw97p6r5uqqf. Het bier staat al koud. ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.
FYI. As per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-object I've removed a whole bunch of nodes where the same feature was mapped out as a way. I made sure not to loose any tags in the process. Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5634963. I checked some of the other QA tools at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance, but of course it would be good if there was some central framework for having QA checks run centrally on OSM servers. This way one could get updates when say a node and closed way are in the same location with the same tags. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000 Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: FYI. As per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-object I've removed a whole bunch of nodes where the same feature was mapped out as a way. I made sure not to loose any tags in the process. Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5634963. I checked some of the other QA tools at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance, but of course it would be good if there was some central framework for having QA checks run centrally on OSM servers. This way one could get updates when say a node and closed way are in the same location with the same tags. Do you really think this was a good idea before discussing it on the list? This has been discussed previously and it was decided that currently we would leave both as not all renderers and searches will work correctly on a way as opposed to a node. The recommendation is only if the item is not already there, not to go and delete items that have both already in place. The statement that you've ensured no tags were lost does not mean that the changes you have made are correct as an example the source tag for Campbell Primary School is now data.australia.gov.au where this was correct for the node but not for the way. I'd suggest we revert this change set and let those who have added the new or additional data make the decision on whether to remove the nodes. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000 Do you really think this was a good idea before discussing it on the list? I did ask on the newbies list before about what to do here, I was told that deleting the nodes was the best thing to do. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/2010-August/thread.html#5749 This has been discussed previously and it was decided that currently we would leave both as not all rendering and searches will work correctly on a way as opposed to a node. My previous search could not find this discussion, could you point me to this discussion? Thanks. The recommendation is only if the item is not already there, not to go and delete items that have both already in place. The statement that you've ensured no tags were lost does not mean that the changes you have made are correct as an example the source tag for Campbell Primary School is now data.australia.gov.au where this was correct for the node but not for the way. I'd suggest we revert this change set and let those who have added the new or additional data make the decision on whether to remove the nodes. You are right, I only changed a couple of these and should have asked about what to do with these. Especially if the way was created after the node was placed, and where the way had no source tags already (although the source may have been in the changeset). I can track down all these ones with source=data.australia.gov.au, and the QLD DCDB-Lite ones where I may have made a similar mistake. Pending that previous discussion, I would prefer to revert the changeset, pick out those source=data.australia.gov.au, and possibly QLD DCDB-Lite ones, and then re-apply the rest. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000 Do you really think this was a good idea before discussing it on the list? I did ask on the newbies list before about what to do here, I was told that deleting the nodes was the best thing to do. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/2010-August/thread.html#5749 Two people on the newbies list really is not a consensus of what is the right thing to do. If you are contemplating something along these lines particularly with mass deletes or changes then you need to bring it up here. This has been discussed previously and it was decided that currently we would leave both as not all rendering and searches will work correctly on a way as opposed to a node. My previous search could not find this discussion, could you point me to this discussion? Thanks. The original disscussion was more than 12 months ago so not sure where you would find it now. The recommendation is only if the item is not already there, not to go and delete items that have both already in place. The statement that you've ensured no tags were lost does not mean that the changes you have made are correct as an example the source tag for Campbell Primary School is now data.australia.gov.au where this was correct for the node but not for the way. I'd suggest we revert this change set and let those who have added the new or additional data make the decision on whether to remove the nodes. You are right, I only changed a couple of these and should have asked about what to do with these. Especially if the way was created after the node was placed, and where the way had no source tags already (although the source may have been in the changeset). I can track down all these ones with source=data.australia.gov.au, and the QLD DCDB-Lite ones where I may have made a similar mistake. Pending that previous discussion, I would prefer to revert the changeset, pick out those source=data.australia.gov.au, and possibly QLD DCDB-Lite ones, and then re-apply the rest. The change set has been reverted. I'd still be cautious about changing any of these per my previous comments. A more useful QA task is making sure straight roads are straight and only have required nodes. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: The original disscussion was more than 12 months ago so not sure where you would find it now. If it was 1 year ago, maybe those renders and searches have been fixed by now? The OSM Mapnik style used on the main page renders names on the way (so we see duplicate names). Nominatim on the main page picks up both the way name and node name, hence the same object is listed twice in the results list. Osmarender appears to render the way name, but not the node name (which is okay because deleting the node won't change anything here). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-de] Fragen zu einer Wanderrelation
Am 28.08.10 14:02, schrieb Holger s...@der: Hallo Liste, danke für die Infos und Hinweise. Eine Frage hätte ich noch. Warum wird der name Tag der Relation nicht mit auf der Karte ausgewertet? Also warum steht nicht in meinem Fall Maria-Pawlowna-Promenadenweg auf dem Weg? Das würde dann bei dem Weg hier hier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/33123420 ziemlich unübersichtlich. Gruß, André Joost ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] svn account fuerr josm-plugins
Am 29.08.10 14:13, schrieb Werner König: Hallo Liste, ich möchte ein account, um plugins für josm in das Repositorium auf dem Server zu schreiben. Dafür sollte ich nach meinem Wissenstand den Benutzer TomH kontaktieren. Auf der Webseite http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TomH findet man jedoch folgendes Please do not message me via the web site if you want an SVN account - email me with a preferred username instead and I will sort it out. Das dumme ist bloß, dass ich keine email-Adresse von TomH habe. Kann irgendjemand helfen. Schau mal in seinen Blog und durchsuch die Seite nach dem @ Gruß, André Joost ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Navipowm 0.2.4.
Am 27.08.10 17:44, schrieb Wolfgang Wienke: Hallo! Am 27.08.2010 14:23, schrieb Georg Feddern: Auf http://sourceforge.net/projects/navipowm/files/ unten den Baum Browse Files for NaviPOWM - All Files -- Navipowm --- 0.2.4 Dort hatte ich gesucht, fand aber nur PC-Versionen. Wenn du weit genug nach unten blätterst, stehen da auch WM-Versionen für Windows Mobile 5 und 2003: NaviPOWM33.5 MB 2010-02-27 8,098Subscribe Folder view 0.2.4 11.0 MB 2010-02-27 3,278 Subscribe Folder view NaviPOWM-Qt-MinGW-0.2.4-Setup.exe 5.7 MB 2010-02-27 197 Release Notes NaviPOWM-MinGW-0.2.4-Setup.exe windows 596.0 KB2010-02-27 1,787 Release Notes NaviPOWM-0.2.4.tar.gz linux bsd solaris 639.2 KB2010-02-27 319 Release Notes NaviPOWM-0.2.4.md5 588 Bytes 2010-02-27 22 Release Notes NaviPOWM-ReleaseNotes-0.2.4.txt 833 Bytes 2010-02-26 245 Release Notes NaviPOWM-Mobile-WM5-0.2.4-Setup.exe 445.4 KB2010-02-26 133 Release Notes NaviPOWM-Mobile-WM5-0.2.4-Setup.cab 1.6 MB 2010-02-26 373 Release Notes NaviPOWM-Mobile-WM2003SE-0.2.4-Setup.exe443.9 KB 2010-02-26 67 Release Notes NaviPOWM-Mobile-WM2003SE-0.2.4-Setup.cab1.6 MB 2010-02-26 135 Release Notes Ich habe es jetzt aber von der Adresse die André Joost gemailt hat. Die könnte dann aber auch nur experimentell sein. Ansonsten bei Navit z.B. Programm: http://download.navit-project.org/navit/ Der Download aus dem Verzeichnis svn installiert aber navit als anderes Programm, was bei mir einfach zu langsam läuft. Die Karte schein dort in einer Datei zu sein(?), aber die wird wohl für navipowm nicht verwendbar sein? Ist ja auch ne andere Baustelle. Der Vollständigkeit halber gibts ja auch noch gosmore. Zumindest auf dem PC ist die Routenberechnung da ziemlich schnell. Ich weiß aber nicht, ob der Abbiegebeschränkungen richtig auswertet. Gruß, André Joost ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Fragen zu einer Wanderrelation
Holger s...@der wrote: Eine Frage hätte ich noch. Warum wird der name Tag der Relation nicht mit auf der Karte ausgewertet? Also warum steht nicht in meinem Fall Maria-Pawlowna-Promenadenweg auf dem Weg? Weil die Karte dann unlesbar wird. Streckenweise führen auch schon mal 5 Routen über einen Weg, der selber nochmal einen Namen hat. Das ist nicht nur völlig unübersichtlich, es ist bei Mapnik auch noch Zufall, welche von den Texten dann angezeigt werden. Hatte das anfangs mal eingebaut, hab' es sehr schnell wieder ausgebaut. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Fragen-zu-einer-Wanderrelation-tp5472221p5477101.html Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzumstellung - Warum kein OSM 2.0 mit besserem Datenmodell?
Ich persönlich würde ein verbessertes Datenmodell sehr zu schätzen wissen und denke es würde nicht nur die Anwendung der Daten deutlich erleichtern, sondern auch die Attraktivität des Projektes steigern und den Einstieg für Neu- und Gelegenheitsmapper deutlich vereinfachen. Auf der anderen Seite halte ich es für tödlich, zwei umstrittene Punkte gleichzeitig anzugehen. Es gibt im Projekt auch eine starke anarchistische Fraktion, die jede Form von Regelung vehement ablehnt. In dieser Sichtweise gilt die Devise, das wird sich schon alles irgendwie von selbst finden und 5 widersprüchliche Tagging-Methoden für die gleiche Sache und völlig verwirrte Mapper sind ein kleineres Übel als sich selbst nach einer Regelung zu richten. Damit hätten wir dann gleich den nächsten Split, zwischen einem geordneten, konsistenten OSM 2.0 und dem freien Anarcho-Fork. Ich bin schon froh, wenn wir die Lizenzumstellung alleine hinbekommen. Danach können wir uns wieder der viel komplexeren und grundsatzphilosophischeren Frage widmen, was eigentlich ein Radweg ist... :-) Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Lizenzumstellung-Warum-kein-OSM-2-0-mit-besserem-Datenmodell-tp5476188p5477137.html Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] ....ich bleib bei OSM !
Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: Gerne, wenn die Odbl zu einer SA Lizenz abgeaendert wird. Sprich wenn nicht nur die Datenbank frei sein muss, sondern auch das daraus erstellte Produkt und keine DRM Mechanismen erlaubt werden (samt Aenderung in CT dass dieser Fakt zentral bestehen bleibt) Über diesen Unfug darfst Du Dich gerne mal mit Nop unterhalten, der Aufgrund der CC-by-SA derzeit keine Wanderkarte aus einem layer machen kann. So viel zum Thema kommerzielle Verwertung. Dass das Kartenwerk nicht mehr als Derivat der Daten angesehen wird ist doch gut. Wer mag kann seine Stylefiles für Garmin, Mapnik etc. weiterhin unter CC-by-SA stellen und schon hat man den selben Stand wie vorher. Da hier aber wohl vor allem von den Unternehmen hinter OSM geringstes Interesse besteht - sehe ich keine große Chance dass ich in diese schoene Lage kommen werde. Welche Unternehmen denn? Ich finde es wie gesagt gut, dass der Künstler, der kreatives mit OSM Daten machen möchte nicht dazu gezwungen wird es unter CC-by-SA zu stellen. Er könnte zum Beispiel in Zukunft auch CC-by-NC-SA verwenden. Das würde zum Beispiel den Machern der Garminkarten effektiv ermöglichen den Vertrieb ihrer Karten zu Mondpreisen bei Ebay zu verhindern. Summa Summarum steht die Lizenz IMO eher freien Projekten im Weg als kommerzieller Verwertung. Schon heute hätte zum Beispiel die Firma Mapquest nicht ihre Stylefiles freigeben müssen (auch wenn sie das getan haben) sondern nur die Ergebniskacheln. Gruss Sven -- It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not. (Bill Gates) /me is gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] openstreetmap - regestered trademark?
Am Sonntag 29 August 2010, 18:44:59 schrieb Werner König: Nein so ist das ganze nicht, unter diesem link werden map's und andere gis_sachen angeboten, Werbung konnte ich keine erkennen. Ein click auf diesen link lohnt sich (vielleicht). Doch, das ist ne hundordinäre Werbeseite. Deren Programme leiten aus dem Domainnamen und dem Inhalt der Original-Domain her um welches Thema es geht. Hier geht es halt um Maps und so, da kommt halt passende Werbung. Dsss sich das ganze selbst dann Suchergebnisse nennt, ändert nichts daran, dass es Werbung ist. Gruß, Bernd -- Arme haben Arme. Arme haben Beine. Beine haben keine Arme. Arme Beine! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Fragen zu einer Wanderrelation
Hallo Liste, NopMap schrieb: Holger s...@der wrote: Eine Frage hätte ich noch. Warum wird der name Tag der Relation nicht mit auf der Karte ausgewertet? Also warum steht nicht in meinem Fall Maria-Pawlowna-Promenadenweg auf dem Weg? Weil die Karte dann unlesbar wird. Streckenweise führen auch schon mal 5 Routen über einen Weg, der selber nochmal einen Namen hat. Das ist nicht nur völlig unübersichtlich, es ist bei Mapnik auch noch Zufall, welche von den Texten dann angezeigt werden. Okay, das klingt überzeugend. Hatte das anfangs mal eingebaut, hab' es sehr schnell wieder ausgebaut. bye Nop Danke und Ciao Holger ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Status OSMdoc
Hallo Lars, Am 6. Juli 2010 12:43 schrieb Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com: Ich denke spätestens Ende Juli werde ich mal wieder ein ausführlicheres Statusupdate schreiben. kannst du schon Erfolge vermelden? Ciao André ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
