On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> ...From Sunday, we will run 5 weeks allowing folks
> who decline the ability to continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only
> contributions. The objective is get the remaining 77,000 to accept or
> decline. If that runs slowly, we add up to 5 mo
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote:
>>> Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of
>>> incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think
>>>
Thanks!
It would be interesting to observe how the response goes once Phase 3 kicks in.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> I was actually thinking about doing that but went to bed last night
> after getting the first one up. At that point the point I believe the
> start point
On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote:
>> Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of
>> incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think
>> they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or
>
I was actually thinking about doing that but went to bed last night
after getting the first one up. At that point the point I believe the
start point for the data was just barely off of the first graph. But I
just added a 5 day graph. I will extend it as I get more data to show
the long term trend.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Tobias Knerr writes:
> > Russ Nelson wrote:
> > > Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
> > > suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
> > > change will hurt OSM, and not help it
Could you create a graph that shows the graph since you started
collecting data in addition to or instead of just the last 48 hours?
:-)
This graph is very informative.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I
> thoug
Tobias Knerr writes:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
> > suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
> > change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all.
>
> I wonder why you believe that the only way a lice
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:10 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of
>> cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could "rip us off")
>
> Show us the evidence to back u
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
>> Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
>> city only, incorporati
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot
> writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license,
> then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that new
> license.
Th
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Mike N writes:
> > Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for
> > the cases I'm aware of.
>
> The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
> who violate it.
You've got it exactly backwards.
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote:
> Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of
> incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think
> they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or
> perhaps, legally, they don't think they have t
Hi,
On 17 April 2011 01:22, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. However, I want to unambiguously
> have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide
> attribution for every single mapper. I also consider improved
> compatibility with other licenses for prod
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:00 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
> ... it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in
> > Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be
> > resolved before forcing people to re-licence
Russ Nelson wrote:
> Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
> suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
> change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all.
I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly
help OSM is by
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:50:03 +0100
Grant Slater wrote:
> If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half
> missed the point.
> There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal
> ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the
> community ch
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:20:27 -0400
Russ Nelson wrote:
> I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the
> community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that
> it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never
> thought it would come to actua
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:16 +0200
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and
> talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a
> working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing
> terms, this house is on fire. Day
On 16 April 2011 23:36, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
>> Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
>> city only, incorporating it int
80n writes:
> The only thing that has happened so far is
> that the license change process has been so protracted that it has
> damaged OSM much more than any imagined threat could possibly have
> done.
Here, here! If anybody is SO bored that fiddling with the license
seems like fun, come edit
Frederik Ramm writes:
> On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> > what, exactly, would persuade you
> > that this isn't a realistic possibility?
>
> I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
> example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
> Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
> city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either
> obvious (i.e. we c
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Ed,
>
> On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of
>> examples
>> by now.
>
> It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
> proprietary giant's d
On 16 April 2011 23:37, Ed Avis wrote:
> Frederik Ramm remote.org> writes:
>
>>I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
>>example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
>>perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it
>>ei
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of
> cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could "rip us off")
Show us the evidence to back up this assertion please.
__
On 16/04/11 22:37, Ed Avis wrote:
Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count
as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to
court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side
that's in the wrong wil
Frederik Ramm remote.org> writes:
>I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
>example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
>perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it
>either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
what, exactly, would persuade you
that this isn't a realistic possibility?
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
perhaps a city only, incorporating it
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 09:21 PM, Kevin Peat wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It is certainly a lot more detailed
than anything I have read before. My first impression is how can a
process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed
dataset?
I assume that decisions will on
Ed Avis wrote:
> Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than
> capable
> legal departments, who are more than capable of taking advantage of such a
> loophole, that there is slightly more to it than the simple mantra of 'our
> licence does not apply'?
Yes, there is mo
Kevin Peat kevinpeat.com> writes:
>My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly
>result
>in a cleanly licensed dataset?
I doubt that it can. This is one additional reason to continue offering the old
licence as a dual-licence option. Those users of the map who are
Sorry my last message was a bit intemperate.
What I should have asked was this: if you still believe that some big firm can
'rip off' the OSM map data with impunity, despite the fact that this
conspicuously has not happened (the opposite in fact - our licence is
universally
respected among large
Frederik, do you mean to say that after all these years of the project you
haven't seen a single example of any company - large or small - taking the OSM
data and being legally untouchable?
Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable
legal departments, who are
So hard to know which message to reply to in this very long chain. I'll
try to pick out the main points in response to my message:
*Ordnance Survey Open Data*: As far as I am aware our current licence etc
is compatible with the OS licence, so by changing ours, we are making a
conscious decision
Hi,
On 16 April 2011 10:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero
>> part of the community which wants OSM to switch license. Not everyone
>> needs to be true to that part of the community ju
On 16 April 2011 19:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh
> air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports
> discussion on talk-gb ("Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a
> Bot").
>
> Over 2
Frederik Ramm writes:
> It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
> proprietary giant's database.
Worry about the license less and map more. The more we map, the more
value there is in participating in the community as a peer rather than
a parasite.
--
--my blog i
Ed,
On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples
by now.
It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you
were a member of the
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 07:47 PM, Kevin Peat wrote:
Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the
license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those
people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as
well take a break and get some fresh air.
If people are indeed
2011/4/16 Ed Avis :
> By excluding contributors who don't agree with the new scheme you are wielding
> a very sharp stick It would not be a good idea to set a precedent that
> the
> OSMF should simply push through the 'best' answer and exclude dissenters. One
> day, you might find yourself o
2011/4/16 Kevin Peat :
> ... all those people currently tracing thousands
> of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air.
fresh air is not the worst ingredient to OSMapping.
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@open
On 16 April 2011 17:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about
> anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must
> choose their license according to what is compatible with OS?
...
>
I say to you the same I said to Ia
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to
> lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status
> quo. Doing nothing is not an option.
And yet we've been doing nothing for several years
Frederik Ramm remote.org> writes:
>much less be asked:
>"Do you think the house is on fire yes/no?"
Please point to some real flames.
In all the time the licence discussions have been happening, nobody has
mentioned
*one* *single* *case* where the licence of the map isn't respected and we are
Michael Collinson ayeltd.biz> writes:
>In addition to Dermot's comments, we initially considered dual-licensing
>CC-BY-SA but, yes, regretfully rejected it as it undermines a major
>objective of the license change which is to provide the strongest
>protection of OSM geodata in as many jurisdic
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing
when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely)
doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new
licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki
pages, it is not cl
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 04:13 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
But, as you said, that poll was unofficial, only included 500 people,
and if I remember correctly had some very confusing options at first.
My guess is that more than 10.000 people have been informed of the poll
(via the lists I mentioned). The fact
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing
when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely)
doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new
licence or contributor terms - From w
My thinking on this is very similar. I have no particular objection to the
new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my
contributions are governed by.
I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map
for the sake of transferring to a more rob
I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the
community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that
it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never
thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that
that was OBVIOUSLY so i
Ian,
On 04/16/2011 02:10 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it
doesn't look like I will.
You asked when "the community of OpenStreetMap" was asked about the
license change.
...
No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that w
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees wrote:
> doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
> No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change
> license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of
> the desire with the commu
Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it
doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
that. I have been beaten into submission.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees wrote:
>
> > Thanks f
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine wrote:
> No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having
> the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a
> problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend
> that common courtesy. I find
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK
government
have now accepted
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote:
>>>
>>> The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
>>> 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK
>>> government
>>> have now accepte
nice
j
-Original Message-
From: Toby Murray [mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 April 2011 10:01
To: OSM Talk
Subject: [OSM-talk] License graph
Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I
thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of
us
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government
have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so
my own 'nee
Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I
thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of
users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of
the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick
& dirty script to use as a
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 01:29 AM, Dermot McNally wrote:
FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted
about the change. On the other, ple
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 10:29 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
We simply draw up a document
that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms,
which says "I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the
additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below
befor
On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 16 April 2011 01:29, Dermot McNally wrote:
This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining
the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and
now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers,
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote:
> The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
> 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government
> have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so
> my own 'need' for OSM ha
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:42:00 +0100
Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>
> > So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing?
> > I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to
> > legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased
> > n
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> if it isn't about time to readdress the area of merging data from different
> sources? Rather than throwing everything in the one pot and mangling it,
> creating a more open data interface so that third parties can supply feeds
> in much the
Well, I brought this up now, because for one the thing has changed so many
times, and now they are asking people to leave.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>
> > So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing?
> > I have nev
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork
has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors
retaining their own copyright.
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/
and
Dermot McNally wrote:
So let's see which point of view ends up mainstream and which belongs
to a dissenting minority. So far, as I look at the volume of map data,
as I look at the vast majority of the people who have built and
maintained the map and the infrastructure on which it runs, what I see
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally wrote:
> wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally
> abject opposition should come after, not before, "neutral" appraisal
> of the proposal, shouldn't it?
There has been so many issues with the new license, the new
contributor terms
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork
> has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors
> retaining their own copyright.
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/
> and interesting
On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing?
> I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I
> am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting
> an opinion if these people have not been asked bef
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:34:20 +1000
David Murn wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:10 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
>
> > I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult
> > decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the
> > only open source project to have had to make t
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:11:11 +0200
Mike Dupont wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > David Murn wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source
> > >> projec
On 16 April 2011 08:28, Russ Nelson wrote:
> In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't
> presume an answer without first asking the question.
Actually, I have thought widely on this. My slightly earlier email
this morning outlines my thought on what defines the "mainstrea
On 16 April 2011 07:00, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data?
> Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data?
A lot of the differences of opinion on this matter are finding
expression in the words people choose to use t
Dermot McNally writes:
> But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in,
> even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly
> consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to
> be a part of.
In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM, David Murn wrote:
> I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new
> untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12
> month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo
> between being announced and final
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:09 -0700, Kai Krueger wrote:
> Dermot McNally wrote:
> >
> > FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
> > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
> > see as an outsider.
> >
>
> No, the vote part really isn't tha
Frederik Ramm writes:
> We're not "sacrificing countries". We saw that we have built our project
> on (legal) sand,
Nonsense. Your choice of what to tag and how to tag it is a creative
choice. You own that expression of the idea of a map. There is no
reason for you to wait to sue somebody for i
80 matches
Mail list logo
