Sorry, but I don't see a lot of OSM people going over to 'the dark
side'. No matter how good or bad OSM is being run.
If I don't agree with how things are being done here at OSM then I'll
try to fix it, work around it or quit, but I'm *not* going to be an
unpaid employee for Google's mega
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Lambertus schreef:
Sorry, but I don't see a lot of OSM people going over to 'the dark
side'. No matter how good or bad OSM is being run.
If I don't agree with how things are being done here at OSM then I'll
try to fix it, work around it or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Maarten Deen schreef:
You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
their data. You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
maps you
Dunno about the rest of you, but I fantasise about the day that a taxi
driver takes me through a shortcut that I added to OSM... I map on OSM
because I want everyone to have the changes, not because I'm on an open
source crusade.
(I'll be quiet again.)
Steve
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
now:
- - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
- - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Anthony schreef:
There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a
restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number
of accesses per key, is there?
Is there for Cloudmade? The routing api, their custom
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Anthony schreef:
There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a
restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number
of accesses per key, is there?
Is there for Cloudmade?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Anthony schreef:
You're confusing me with Lambertus. I never said anything good about
Cloudmade.
I'm not confusing you; it is current practice that the data is used. I
thought that was a /good/ thing. At least I came here for the usage of
data
I still think that you misunderstand me, or maybe I misunderstand you. I
thought that Jonh Smith was talking about users starting to map in
Google's MapMaker and I responded that I would never do that. There is a
big difference between CM, GF etc that use OSM and Google owning the
data and not
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Anthony schreef:
You're confusing me with Lambertus. I never said anything good about
Cloudmade.
I'm not confusing you; it is current practice that the data is used.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Lambertus schreef:
I have no problems with Google using my data, but only if others can
use it too, which means that the database should be accessible (the
planet dump). Your contributions are PD, which goes ever further, so
you agree with this?
On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Lambertus schreef:
I'm just curious... why?
You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used:
I wonder how easy it is in fact to usefully take the OSM data without giving
things back, even with the current license. Seems to me, not so easy. OSM
data is not perfect. To create a value-add, a commercial entity would have
to extend it. So let's say they do in some non-trivial way (e.g. not
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Michael Barabanov wrote:
I wonder how easy it is in fact to usefully take the OSM data without giving
things back, even with the current license. Seems to me, not so easy. OSM
data is not perfect. To create a value-add, a commercial entity would have to
On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:25 PM, 80n wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others
process their data.
Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license,
What a difficult set of words were that; honestly never heard of those
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others
process their data.
Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license,
What a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
I have no idea what that means.
I had no idea about reciprocal license either.
Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they
want to own all the data. Hint hint.
I have asked Google; Tim was sitting there
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
I have no idea what that means.
I had no idea about reciprocal license either.
Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they
want to own all the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding,
product management... for MapMaker might give away what they think
about that.
I think you are a little bit biased. Only a little bit :) And if this
is/becomes
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding,
product management... for MapMaker might give away what they think
about that.
I think you are a
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
To create a value-add, a commercial
entity would have to extend it.
That surely is one way to create added value.
So let's say they do in some
non-trivial way (e.g. not just copy the data wholesale or just create POIs).
The next few updates of OSM in the area
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Frederik Ramm schreef:
Totally true, and actually a good argument for the PD case. Anyone who
takes OSM data and improves it privately is likely to to invest much
more in tracking OSM than it would cost him to just release his data
into OSM
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so
as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
thing, except ...
...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone
the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those
rights is the OSMF.
But only with the condition that
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.ukwrote:
as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
thing, except ...
...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving
everyone
the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
great-snip
There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the
Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without any
kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by
companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
membership and
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
by
companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
target. The
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
by
companies like Navteq
Am 6 Dec 2009 um 16:12 hat Matt Amos geschrieben:
ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you
suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only
thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its members;
OSMF. this introduces other problems,
80n wrote:
Yes, one of the major consequences is that OSMF gets to change the license.
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by
companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a
2009/12/7 Graham Seaman gra...@theseamans.net:
This is the aspect of the whole thing I find most worrying too: this
signover of rights to a centralised body makes external attack much more
possible. Is it really necessary for the OSMF to have both functions
(management and rights ownership)?
So ask for a clause that ownership is transferred to another org in
the event that OSMF is bought out or no longer has the best
interests of it's contributors, but it's not uncommon to assign rights
to an org, as you point out the FSF has been doing it for a long time,
why was there any
Hi!
Just reading:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes
Where user Steve added:
---
What about the 'no' page?
It's mainly full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and is marked as
inaccurate.
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
opinion.
Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
data?
May I
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Hi!
Just reading:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Ye
s
Where user Steve added:
---
What about the 'no' page?
It's mainly full of FUD (Fear,
2009/12/5 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion.
Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data?
Are we an
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion.
I'm not allowed to have opinions?
Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page as
in
dispute.
If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.
I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here?
There was a dispute, I marked
2009/12/5 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
I find the graffiti on the NO page very disturbing. It is intended as a
statement page by those who differ, and those who want to put positive
comments on the new licence should use their own page.
So the REPLY: 's are graffiti?
If a statement is untrue or
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page
as in dispute.
If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.
I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here?
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
opinion.
Is this the organization you want to hand over the
On Dec 5, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page
as in dispute.
If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.
I answered this on
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
May I remind the OSMF that from the Wiki page[1]:
The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit
organisation supporting but not controlling the project.
However, the currently planned action in the license change
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote:
Don't you mean rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it where I
brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list?
i have not made personal comments about any one
i suggest you don't either
___
Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that OSMF
controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an
international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling the
project.
Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous
On Dec 5, 2009, at 17:17, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote:
Don't you mean rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it
where I
brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list?
i have not made personal comments about any one
i
Matthew Luehrmann wrote:
Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that
OSMF controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation
is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling
the project.
Maybe a better question
2009/12/6 Matthew Luehrmann matthew.luehrm...@gmail.com:
Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that
OSMF controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation
is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling
the
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
And even the licensing debate could be seen
as support even though that indeed has a little bit more of a
controlling element to it. But it is support in that the current license
is broken and inapplicable to geodata as
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
opinion.
I'm not allowed to have
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:25, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF
Chairman's
position about other peoples
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when
54 matches
Mail list logo
