First, let me say that I do know Frederik personally, I have had
pleasant dinners with him and hope to do so again post-pandemic. He
has apologised for his poor choice of words, and I accept his apology.
The volume of attacks and hostile tone against Celine in reaction to
the document she shared
> Many females do not map using their own name but will use a male sounding
> name to avoid problems.
John, are you seriously citing this as evidence that there is not
pervasive misogyny in the OSM community?
___
talk mailing list
Where I am, there is wide variety in what days/hours such sites are
available, whether they are free or have a cost, whether you need an
appointment, and how temporary they are. Some are only around for a few
weeks, and I would expect them to last maximum 1 yr. Further, the use is
very limited
Assuming that we're taking about a physical object, I don't see how the
importer would have any obligations to do anything under copyright law,
database law, or contact law. That question preempts any ODbL analysis.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 11:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a
"Reasonable" means that if you put the attribution in a language that most
people would expect, then it's fine, including at an airport in Poland. If
you put the attribution in Polish for a map meant for display in Poland,
and then later the map is moved to London (say, to a museum), that's also
[0] https://www.alltrails.com/ (in the search box enter the name of a
trail, park, or city to see their map.)
> It looks like AllTrails now correctly attributes OpenStreetMap. Those of
> you more familiar with the licensing might want to chime in and let me know
> if simply stating "(c)
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:14 AM Alexandre Oliveira
wrote:
> > Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo
> from Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It
> would be quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make
> keeping
You and Alexandre are correct that Google does not (usually) allow you to
use their data off of their platform. According to Google's Terms, you
usually cannot use just the data and not the tile server. Google does,
however, make exceptions for paying customers.
Mapbox also has a whitelabling
standard would suggest a *much* less strict interpretation of what is
"reasonable" under the ODbL.
-Kathleen
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 28. Apr 2020, at 23:34, Kathleen Lu via talk
> wrote:
>
> The F
> the header of the code, that's the place where the attribution is expected.
>
> roughly equivalent to some corner in the displayed map, that's what the
> license says, right?
>
I do not think these two things are at all equivalent. OSM is a database,
so the equivalent attribution notice to the
I find this view quite surprising coming from a software engineer.
I know no major open source license that requires attribution *in the UI
that the user sees without clicking on anything*.
Every example of open source license attribution I have seen is after
several clicks, e.g.
My local University is the same way. Students and faculty automatically
get access, but community and alumni can get access by paying fees.
Is access=members an option?
It implies that you have to become a member according to some criteria, but
that membership is possible for a large swath of
Per the contributor agreement, the copyright remains with the contributors
(to the extent their individual contributions were copyrightable), to
license their rights to OSMF with a right to sublicense, but the database
rights belong to OSMF, because OSMF is the only entity that "collected" the
Right. Since the definition of "active contributor" includes "has
maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds
to a request to vote within 3 weeks", then people who do not vote do not
count as active.
A 2/3 majority voting in favor is not an easy threshold by any
I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking, cycling,
and public transit, and their public transit information is probably more
complete than OSM's.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:25 AM Philip Barnes wrote:
> OSM includes walking and cycling infrastructure thus promoting and
>
Nuno I searched your attachment for the word "Snap" and it is nowhere to be
found.
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:55 AM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> Hi Mateusz,
>
>
> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, yes
> *2018*. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be
IMO (not yet stating the official opinion of the LWG since the LWG has not
had time convene and discuss), the predicted roads are not a Derivative
Database and Facebook can apply whatever license it wants to them
(including MIT).
It is not a case of “raw data dervived from aerial imagery, plus
For your usecase, Tom, perhaps Street-Complete would work for you if you
turned on all the building-related quests and turned off the other quests?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.westnordost.streetcomplete=en_US
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 11:33 AM Tom Russell
wrote:
> Am Mi., 6.
Nuno, this isn't about what the license allows, it's about the law. You
can't re-write the law. What the law allows it would allow even if there
was no license at all.
And I would also note that, frankly, the EU is the outlier in this respect
in having database protections at all (and I would not
I concur with KaiRo that screenshots are likely fair uses under US law (and
IAAL). They are small excerpts of the larger work (the map, or if you are
comparing to the database, even less is copied), the underlying work is
factual, the purpose is to provide an example and there is a good argument
Dave, I believe someone from the Facebook engineering team gave a
presentation at the recent SotMs on this:
https://2019.stateofthemap.org/sessions/3WQKAX/ &
https://2019.stateofthemap.us/program/sun/keepin-it-fresh-and-good-continuous-ingestion-of-osm-data-at-facebook.html
- the videos are up.
If
website auto-creating notes every time someone made a report
seems to support my theory.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:14 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 10/09/2019 17:40, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote:
> > Not that I've heard (I don't think that was ever the case), but 1000s
> > of notes
Not that I've heard (I don't think that was ever the case), but 1000s of
notes about FB on OSM sounds terrible to me - they would only add noise for
mappers who check notes for things to fix, and some editors show notes in
the interface. My understanding is that FB *is* fixing whatever errors get
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018_11_15#Facebook_update
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been published
> somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap or the so called
>
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a report
> button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was wrong, no note
> on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.
>
??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG
>
> > And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important, the
> overlay of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap? Or is the
> overlay only more important than the basemap if the overlay comes from OSM?
>
>
> In a basemap/overlay data constellation, I would generally
https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a very interesting example. On my
screen, the attribution clearly stretches longer than the width of the map.
Is your opinion then that they should attribute similar to your European
Commission example of "correct" attribution
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:27 PM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
> missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
> it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
> data (the
Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then
I disagree that there is no harm. The credibility point goes both ways.
While no one could sue OSMF for recommending something that is not required
by the license, OSMF would lose the trust of data users, mappers, and any
adjudicative tribunals.
And it would be misleading and harmful to anyone who
Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
an image or that no interaction is allowed???
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow quote
> was not true?
>
> Both licenses are “By
> Guidelines by the licensor
>
> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of our
> data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final decision
> on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes
> arising in the first place and can
**Just a fyi that Dristie is a woman. She was at SotM last year and quite
nice to chat with.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:22 AM stevea wrote:
> As Michal/Mike suggested, I did reply to DrishT's diary page and DrishT
> quickly replied. He was conciliatory, saying "the team has been engaging
> in as
I don't think it's disingenuous at all for Facebook to use their own POIs
instead of OSM's. Wasn't the whole point of the Collective Databases
principle and the Collective Databases Guideline specifically to enable
this type of usage, so that those interested in OSM did not have to make an
"all or
I agree that human wisdom is critical to high quality, and AI isn't useful
if, at the end of the process, it doesn't produce quality output, but I
will challenge this statement: "you can have high quality without AI." I
don't think that's definitively true for a global map. It's very difficult
to
On the other hand, if the map of your area is completely blank, it looks
very daunting to a new mapper, who may be discouraged and abandon OSM
(either as too difficult to improve and as too poor quality to use).
The map is constantly changing because roads and other things on the map
are changing
The BBC article is missing a lot of context and details. The actual
Facebook post -
https://tech.fb.com/ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world/
- notes both the importance of human mappers and the local community's
on-the-ground contributions, and states "We became close
In that case, if I were you, I'd just go straight CC-BY with a OSM/ODbL
compatibility waiver. (See
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ for template
language)
The "sharealike" in SA refers to the sharing conditions on derivatives, not
the original. The BY part refers to the
So to confirm what you want...
If someone wanted to use the panos in a video, stitched together with
photos they took and narration about a hike, that video must be CC-BY-SA or
the panos cannot be used, is that right?
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM Nick Whitelegg
wrote:
>
> Hello Martin,
>
>
> In general, it is impossible to find proper names in one language when you
> have solely name in other language. One needs more context to actually do
> this.
>
> To make the translator's job easier, I do a google or bing or wikidata
> or some machine translation, so that they can skip the
Looks neat, Nick!
I will say that given that OSM is under ODbL, which is not compatible with
CC-BY-SA (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility)
I would suggest that you consider using ODbL as the license instead of
CC-BY-SA.
Best,
Kathleen
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:22
Google, yes. Google's lawyers, no ;)
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 4:07 AM Simon Poole wrote:
> Actually I think the more important question is: doesn't google have a
> better method to create a background map than screenshots? :-)
> (particularly noticeable due to the POI pins in the 2nd and third
>
Of course Google *can* afford a lawyer and bureaucracy does not legally or
physically limit their ability to act, but I think you underestimate the
*practical* limitations. Even the smallest amount of bureaucracy and cost
(which just adds more bureaucracy, because the cost must be approved) makes
Hi Martin,
Yes, Google might already have a subsidiary in a country (since they have
them in many but certainly not in all countries) but they would still have
to "go" there in the sense that: 1) I very much doubt the subsidiary would
already have a plaintiff-side copyright attorney on speed dial,
omfortable taking the "risk" myself.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 10:03 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Apr 2019, at 09:47, Kathleen Lu via talk
> wrote:
> >
> > My opinion as a copyright lawyer is that there is not
My opinion as a copyright lawyer is that there is nothing copyrightable in
the single line that consists of the proposed route, under US law.
Of course others are free to disagree.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 9:36 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> de minimis is applicable in cases where copyrighted
The linked document was filed by GN's attorneys, submitted to the FCC, not
authored by the FCC. That said, the level of detail on the map is so small
that I personally would deem any copying de minimus.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019, 11:30 PM Clifford Snow
wrote:
>
> François,
> The US FCC should be
> Imagine the openstreetmap.org home page, but without the map.
>
> I assume there would be a map, just that it would be a click away, right?
>
> Or maybe a smaller map, with context explaining OSM and how to get
involved above and below the map, and an invitation to "explore the map" by
clicking
48 matches
Mail list logo
