Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Jukka Rahkonen]

SteveC  asklater.com> writes:


> I'm personally thinking at this stage that a better solution 
> would be for the license move to ODbL to include
> a fork as part of the agreement, so everyone contributes their 
> data as both ODbL and/or PD, not just move to
> ODbL. We could host a PD or CC0 server alongside the ODbL one 
> and just see which dataset grows more quickly. I
> think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server while 
> the ODbL server will have a process which is
> either manual or automated to pull in the PD data and will 
> always be the better map. Would that make the PD
> crowd happy? Personally I don't see it as much different to 
> just working for Google and TomTom for free.
> 
> Yours &c.
> 
> Steve

Nice plan. I see a minory difference and it is working for free 
for both Google and TomTom and OSM and anybody else who might be 
interested in my contributions. Perhaps some users do not add 
anything back to the free dataset but they cannot take the data 
away from other users either.

-Jukka-




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/19 Roy Wallace :
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith  wrote:
>> 2010/1/19 Roy Wallace :
>>> It isn't working for Google and/or TomTom - it's working for the
>>> "public", i.e. everyone and everything (including Google and TomTom).
>>
>> If "the public" gives back they could already be using OSM data... why
>> is it a good thing to spend time, effort, money and other resources so
>> others can benefit for free when they don't wish to give anything
>> back?
>
> Some like to give without expecting anything in return.
>

When google does it we can all be on a level playing field..

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> 2010/1/19 Roy Wallace :
>> It isn't working for Google and/or TomTom - it's working for the
>> "public", i.e. everyone and everything (including Google and TomTom).
>
> If "the public" gives back they could already be using OSM data... why
> is it a good thing to spend time, effort, money and other resources so
> others can benefit for free when they don't wish to give anything
> back?

Some like to give without expecting anything in return.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/19 Aun Yngve Johnsen :
> Yahoo have imported OSM data for some while, though I think they take it as
> a sort of "payment" for our usage of their hi-res aerial service.

Don't you mean flickr?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/19 Roy Wallace :
> It isn't working for Google and/or TomTom - it's working for the
> "public", i.e. everyone and everything (including Google and TomTom).

If "the public" gives back they could already be using OSM data... why
is it a good thing to spend time, effort, money and other resources so
others can benefit for free when they don't wish to give anything
back?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/19 Liz :
> This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data. Just

The bigger problem will be how can OSM do that, which is why I'm
suggesting that people could tag with the license information, it
would then already be incorporated into OSM :)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Aun Yngve Johnsen]

On 18/01/2010, at 20:00, Anthony wrote:

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Roy Wallace   
wrote:

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Liz  wrote:
>
>>  I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server
>>
> This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the  
data.


This is Google - it's what they do best.

Yeah, Google would probably quickly start importing data from the PD  
OSM into its products.  That alone would be enough to cause me to  
contribute.  I'd love to be able to correct errors that I come  
across in Google Maps Navigation (the Android app).  To compare such  
a thing to rape is really quite appalling.  Not to mention  
hypocritical, when you consider CloudMade and its obnoxious TOS.
Yahoo have imported OSM data for some while, though I think they take  
it as a sort of "payment" for our usage of their hi-res aerial service.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/19 Anthony :
> Yeah, Google would probably quickly start importing data from the PD OSM
> into its products.  That alone would be enough to cause me to contribute.

Why aren't you helping out with map maker then if you care that much?

> I'd love to be able to correct errors that I come across in Google Maps
> Navigation (the Android app).  To compare such a thing to rape is really

Welcome to being human, we are natural exaguraters, rape is probably
not the best way to describe it, but being used and abused might :)

> quite appalling.  Not to mention hypocritical, when you consider CloudMade
> and its obnoxious TOS.

How is google's TOS any better?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/19 SteveC :
> You're being very logical and geeky, but ignoring the social element here. 
> Ignoring CC and just pulling the data in might satisfy you but would then 
> annoy a far greater set of people who we should at least honor the ideals 
> with which they signed up and contributed data, even if the letter of the law 
> we can't enforce.

You're singing to the choir here, I support the ideals of ODBL in
principal, however I'm also practical and see supporting people to
have PD data means we don't need to worry about importing it or
scrubbing duplicates.

> I'm personally thinking at this stage that a better solution would be for the 
> license move to ODbL to include a fork as part of the agreement, so everyone 
> contributes their data as both ODbL and/or PD, not just move to ODbL. We 
> could host a

My suggestion was in a vein hope to appease those wanting this, so
they keep contributing to OSM's DB so OSM keeps benefiting. I think
there is only a small minority that cares strongly about ODBL or PD,
the majority just want get on with it so they can use better map
tiles.

>data and will always be the better map. Would that make the PD crowd happy? 
>Personally I don't see it as much different to just working for Google and 
>TomTom for free.

Again, singing to the choir, I don't want to work for google or any
other mapping company for free unless they wish to give back to the
community, not just hover up all the data and only they benefit from
it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Liz  wrote:
> >
> >>  I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server
> >>
> > This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data.
>
> This is Google - it's what they do best.
>

Yeah, Google would probably quickly start importing data from the PD OSM
into its products.  That alone would be enough to cause me to contribute.
I'd love to be able to correct errors that I come across in Google Maps
Navigation (the Android app).  To compare such a thing to rape is really
quite appalling.  Not to mention hypocritical, when you consider CloudMade
and its obnoxious TOS.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:57 AM, SteveC  wrote:

> I'm personally thinking at this stage that a better solution would be for
> the license move to ODbL to include a fork as part of the agreement, so
> everyone contributes their data as both ODbL and/or PD, not just move to
> ODbL. We could host a PD or CC0 server alongside the ODbL one and just see
> which dataset grows more quickly. I think Google and others will quickly
> rape the PD server while the ODbL server will have a process which is either
> manual or automated to pull in the PD data and will always be the better
> map. Would that make the PD crowd happy?


As long as it's hosted on a server which doesn't contains a Terms of Service
asserting that people agree to the ODbL, I guess it's a start.  If you
decide to do it, CC0 would be a much better choice than PD.

But it'd probably cause nothing but headaches for OSM.  Which site will new
users go to by default?  How are you going to phrase the question which asks
people which one they want?  Which data shows up by default on the main
page?  I really can't see this becoming more than a half-hearted effort,
which is perhaps worse than no effort at all.


> Personally I don't see it as much different to just working for Google and
> TomTom for free.
>

As opposed to just working for GeoFabrik and CloudMade for free?  C'mon.
Releasing the data into the public domain helps out a lot more than *just*
Google and TomTom.  In fact, it helps out all the people and organizations
that releasing data under the ODbL does, *plus* lots of other people and
organizations too.  Plus you get whatever benefit you get which convinced
you to contribute in the first place.

So no, you're not *just* working for Google and TomTom for free.  But you
are helping Google and TomTom for free, so if you think Google and/or TomTom
are evil, then I can see why you might not want to release your
contributions into the public domain.  Personally (without naming names) I
can think of much better examples than Google and TomTom, of companies that
I'd rather not help out.  So I'm not sure if I'd find such a PD fork
acceptable or not.

If you're going to run a fork, why not run a fork under CC-BY-SA?  That
would be something a lot more useful, as it's a fork you're already
implicitly creating anyway.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Liz  wrote:
>
>>  I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server
>>
> This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data.

This is Google - it's what they do best.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Liz]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, SteveC wrote:
>  I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server
> 
This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data. Just 
consider how the big imports from TIGER and AND have gone - put lots of data 
in, duplicated stuff already done - and think about the troubles they face in 
getting that data into a useful form.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:57 AM, SteveC  wrote:
>
> ... I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server while the ODbL 
> server will have a process which is either manual or automated to pull in the 
> PD data and will always be the better map. Would that make the PD crowd 
> happy? Personally I don't see it as much different to just working for Google 
> and TomTom for free.

It isn't working for Google and/or TomTom - it's working for the
"public", i.e. everyone and everything (including Google and TomTom).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[SteveC]

On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:37 PM, John Smith wrote:

> 2010/1/18 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason :
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 22:31, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John Smith  
>>> wrote:
 2010/1/18 DavidD :
> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
> people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
> reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?
 
 The point more is for new data, than existing
>>> 
>>> If this is only applicable to "new data", why not upload that to a
>>> separate server, and later import it into OSM as necessary?
>>> 
>>> I'm not even sure that any contribution to OSM can really be called
>>> "new data", as most "new" data will be "created with reference to a
>>> point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a derived work"
>>> - as Frederik pointed out.
>> 
>> For what it's worth the OSMF legal counsel does not agree that data is
>> viral in this way:
>> 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms
>> 
> 
> That page is probably erring on the side of caution, but it states
> that cc-by-sa probably doesn't count against geo data and then goes on
> to say anyone not agreeing to cc-by-sa will have to have their data
> removed...
> 
> Either cc-by-sa is valid and is enforcible and the information should
> be removed, or it isn't enforcible and the cc-by-sa data can
> transition without any problems...

You're being very logical and geeky, but ignoring the social element here. 
Ignoring CC and just pulling the data in might satisfy you but would then annoy 
a far greater set of people who we should at least honor the ideals with which 
they signed up and contributed data, even if the letter of the law we can't 
enforce.

I'm personally thinking at this stage that a better solution would be for the 
license move to ODbL to include a fork as part of the agreement, so everyone 
contributes their data as both ODbL and/or PD, not just move to ODbL. We could 
host a PD or CC0 server alongside the ODbL one and just see which dataset grows 
more quickly. I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server while 
the ODbL server will have a process which is either manual or automated to pull 
in the PD data and will always be the better map. Would that make the PD crowd 
happy? Personally I don't see it as much different to just working for Google 
and TomTom for free.

Yours &c.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason :
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 22:31, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John Smith  
>> wrote:
>>> 2010/1/18 DavidD :
 OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
 people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
 reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?
>>>
>>> The point more is for new data, than existing
>>
>> If this is only applicable to "new data", why not upload that to a
>> separate server, and later import it into OSM as necessary?
>>
>> I'm not even sure that any contribution to OSM can really be called
>> "new data", as most "new" data will be "created with reference to a
>> point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a derived work"
>> - as Frederik pointed out.
>
> For what it's worth the OSMF legal counsel does not agree that data is
> viral in this way:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms
>

That page is probably erring on the side of caution, but it states
that cc-by-sa probably doesn't count against geo data and then goes on
to say anyone not agreeing to cc-by-sa will have to have their data
removed...

Either cc-by-sa is valid and is enforcible and the information should
be removed, or it isn't enforcible and the cc-by-sa data can
transition without any problems...

Also if geodata isn't copyrightable, then information can't be derived
from it, since the license isn't valid.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 22:31, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John Smith  wrote:
>> 2010/1/18 DavidD :
>>> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
>>> people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
>>> reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?
>>
>> The point more is for new data, than existing
>
> If this is only applicable to "new data", why not upload that to a
> separate server, and later import it into OSM as necessary?
>
> I'm not even sure that any contribution to OSM can really be called
> "new data", as most "new" data will be "created with reference to a
> point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a derived work"
> - as Frederik pointed out.

For what it's worth the OSMF legal counsel does not agree that data is
viral in this way:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> 2010/1/18 DavidD :
>> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
>> people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
>> reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?
>
> The point more is for new data, than existing

If this is only applicable to "new data", why not upload that to a
separate server, and later import it into OSM as necessary?

I'm not even sure that any contribution to OSM can really be called
"new data", as most "new" data will be "created with reference to a
point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a derived work"
- as Frederik pointed out.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Liz]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Anthony wrote:
> You do realize most of the world's legal system doesn't
> even have the concept of releasing things into the public domain, right?
> 
It would be more truthful to say that concept of copyright is restricted to 
Western Law, as Islamic Law sees things quite differently, and is in fact 
closer to PD.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
>
>> But I think you're missing the fact that sites which try to restrict
>> people from copying their databases pretty much universally do not provide
>> database dumps.
>>
>
> I don't think that matters at all. Whether or not a database dump is
> provided universally, or by accident, or not at all, does not make a
> difference regarding rights to the data(base). It is just an implementation
> detail.
>

It doesn't make a difference regarding rights to the data(base), but it does
make a big difference to the de facto ability to enforce restrictions on the
data(base).  This is especially true when copyright rights are explicitly
waived.  Database rights are not very strong, and they are not universal,
which is *why* "sites which try to restrict people from copying their
databases pretty much universally do not provide database dumps".  And
database rights are not even clearly applicable to the OSMF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive";>While
copyright protects the creativity of an author, database rights specifically
protect the "qualitatively and/or quantitatively [a] substantial investment
in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the
contents"

OSMF did not obtain or verify the data in the OSM database.  I suppose you
could say they present it, but the presentation part isn't the part the they
want to restrict anyway.

I still don't see how setting up a bunch of servers and telling people to
make maps gives you a database right, but I have to admit I'm not an expert
in database rights, since they don't apply to me here in Florida.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> But I think you're missing the fact that sites which try to restrict 
> people from copying their databases pretty much universally do not 
> provide database dumps.  

I don't think that matters at all. Whether or not a database dump is 
provided universally, or by accident, or not at all, does not make a 
difference regarding rights to the data(base). It is just an 
implementation detail.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:51 AM, John Smith wrote:

> 2010/1/18 Frederik Ramm :
> > whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a contract
> > that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and say "download
> and
> > use freely" then
>
> Assuming the data isn't copyrightable, the vector + lat/lon
> information may not be, but there is a lot of meta information that
> may be. However I'm guessing Anthony will be the first to breach
> contract, so it's only a matter of time before we have a willing
> candidate :)
>

I never plan to agree to the contract in the first place, so I won't be
breaching it.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
>
> The theory is that the data isn't copyrightable and therefore the
> CC-BY-SA didn't apply in the first place since it is a copyright
> license.
>

Whose theory is that?  It isn't mine.  My theory is that the proposed
contributor terms, which explicitly grant essentially everyone permission to
do essentially everything, is tantamount to a dedication into the public
domain (better, in fact, because it works in some jurisdictions where public
domain dedications aren't permitted).

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Sites that depend on contracts will usually have something in their terms
> and conditions that says "if you're not legally able to enter a contract
> then go away". (We have discussed this and most OSMers would not really like
> to have terms and conditions that basically shut out minors from the
> project. I don't know what will happen.)
>

Yeah, I can't see that happening.

But I think you're missing the fact that sites which try to restrict people
from copying their databases pretty much universally do not provide database
dumps.  A terms and conditions which says "if you're not legally able to
enter a contract then go away" only works if it's combined with a technical
means to catch people trying to systematically download everything (who can
then be charged with computer trespass which is much more severe than a mere
breach of contract, and applies to everyone including minors).

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:

> You seem to be forgetting that Google has terms of service for map
> maker: http://www.google.com/mapmaker/mapfiles/s/terms_mapmaker.html
>
> "By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a
> perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
> license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
> perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of
> the User Submission. "
>
> OpenStreetMap however does not
>

Not yet, but: "You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your
Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within
the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other."
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

My comments are based on the axiom that OSMF adopts those contributor
terms.  If the switch to ODbL (which includes contributor terms, and I was
told that this 0.9 draft is likely to be equivalent to the 1.0 release as
far as this clause is concerned) does not go through, then everything will
be CC-BY-SA, and the whole PD flagging thing makes more sense.

If someone wants to bring up this proposal again *after* the failure of the
switch to ODbL, fine.  But let's handle one misguided and
not-well-thought-out proposal at once.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 15:47, Anthony  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> How exactly does one get protection as a database owner?  It's unclear to
>>> me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're not the
>>> ones actually doing anything.
>>
>> You're right, just like Google doesn't own any of the data the GMM users
>> upload because Google doesn't do anything.
>
> Yes, I know I'm right.  And so does Google.  It's why Google doesn't host
> database dumps or provide an unrestricted API for GMM.
>
> That said, Google does a lot more than OSMF.  At least Google chooses what
> types of data to include/exclude.

You seem to be forgetting that Google has terms of service for map
maker: http://www.google.com/mapmaker/mapfiles/s/terms_mapmaker.html

"By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a
perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of
the User Submission. "

OpenStreetMap however does not, so CC-BY-SA wise the OSMF doesn't have
any rights over user contributions that some random third party
doesn't have. The same was the case with Wikipedia which is why they
had to convince the FSF to change the GFDL in order to change their
license.

The ODbL change plan can at best be described as more fuzzy than that :)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm  > wrote:
> 
> whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a
> contract that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and
> say "download and use freely" then
> 
> * I am in breach of contract
> * anyone who downloads data from my site is not in breach of anything
> 
> 
> And what if you're under the age of majority, and can't be bound by a 
> contract in the first place?

Sites that depend on contracts will usually have something in their 
terms and conditions that says "if you're not legally able to enter a 
contract then go away". (We have discussed this and most OSMers would 
not really like to have terms and conditions that basically shut out 
minors from the project. I don't know what will happen.)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 Frederik Ramm :
> whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a contract
> that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and say "download and
> use freely" then

Assuming the data isn't copyrightable, the vector + lat/lon
information may not be, but there is a lot of meta information that
may be. However I'm guessing Anthony will be the first to breach
contract, so it's only a matter of time before we have a willing
candidate :)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 15:42, DavidD  wrote:
> 2010/1/17 John Smith :
>> 2010/1/18 Anthony :
>>> I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
>>>
>>> All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
>>
>> That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
>> readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another
>> license.
>
> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
> people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
> reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?
>
> It doesn't look like this idea has had very much though behind it.
> It's pretty easy to see that two groups of people trying to reach the
> same goal with different licenses within the same database is going to
> cause friction.

The theory is that the data isn't copyrightable and therefore the
CC-BY-SA didn't apply in the first place since it is a copyright
license.

Although oddly the same people who make this claim aren't coming up
with non-free copyrighted map data for us to import, but why would
that be a problem since geodata isn't copyrightable?

Beats me.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a contract
> that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and say "download and
> use freely" then
>
> * I am in breach of contract
> * anyone who downloads data from my site is not in breach of anything
>

And what if you're under the age of majority, and can't be bound by a
contract in the first place?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

John Smith wrote:
> What you are suggesting is shady at best, and is no better than
> someone doing that with any other copyrighted material, it doesn't
> make it any more legal to simply take it than it would be to take MS
> word uploaded somewhere.

There is a difference regarding downstream users. If I take copyrighted 
material and put it up on a web site saying "download and use freely", then

* I am in breach of copyright
* anyone who downloads data from my site is, too

whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a contract 
that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and say "download 
and use freely" then

* I am in breach of contract
* anyone who downloads data from my site is not in breach of anything

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> How exactly does one get protection as a database owner?  It's unclear to
>>> me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're not the
>>> ones actually doing anything.
>>>
>>
>> You're right, just like Google doesn't own any of the data the GMM users
>> upload because Google doesn't do anything.
>>
>
> Yes, I know I'm right.  And so does Google.  It's why Google doesn't host
> database dumps or provide an unrestricted API for GMM.
>

By the way, what am I right about.  I asked a question, which I don't know
the answer to.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:42 AM, DavidD  wrote:

> 2010/1/17 John Smith :
> > 2010/1/18 Anthony :
> >> I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
> >>
> >> All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
> >
> > That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
> > readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another
> > license.
>
> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
> people deal with that?


Well, how will the ODbL people deal with that?  If OSM switches to ODbL, all
the CC-BY-SA-only data has to go into the trash can anyway.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
>
>> How exactly does one get protection as a database owner?  It's unclear to
>> me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're not the
>> ones actually doing anything.
>>
>
> You're right, just like Google doesn't own any of the data the GMM users
> upload because Google doesn't do anything.
>

Yes, I know I'm right.  And so does Google.  It's why Google doesn't host
database dumps or provide an unrestricted API for GMM.

That said, Google does a lot more than OSMF.  At least Google chooses what
types of data to include/exclude.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 DavidD :
> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
> people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
> reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?

The point more is for new data, than existing, but this is to scratch
a particular itch, may not suit everyone.

> It doesn't look like this idea has had very much though behind it.
> It's pretty easy to see that two groups of people trying to reach the
> same goal with different licenses within the same database is going to
> cause friction.

Unless you have background on a phone call that happened the other day
and the reason for at least one person wanting PD. I am not at liberty
to share the motivations of others, but surfice to say the main goal
for me is to harmonise stuff enough that some PD people are happy
enough to keep putting new data into OSM.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> How exactly does one get protection as a database owner?  It's unclear 
> to me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're 
> not the ones actually doing anything.

You're right, just like Google doesn't own any of the data the GMM users 
upload because Google doesn't do anything.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 Anthony :
> It's certainly much more legal to copy material for which you have explicit
> permission to copy than to copy material which is copyrighted and for which
> you don't have permission to copy.  See

Again, I'll leave the legal opinions up to others to debate with you,
but to me if nothing else is morally wrong to do this, someone
somewhere would be in breach of contract with OSM over it, and simply
saying I wasn't the one breaching contract doesn't morally mean you
have a right to do what you like with data others have spent effort,
time, money and other resources to create it.

> Define "PD data".  You do realize most of the world's legal system doesn't
> even have the concept of releasing things into the public domain, right?

Yes, although I doubt those promoting PD understand that, I have
mentioned in a couple of other emails.

> In any case, why not just have a flag on each user account which says "allow
> this data to be used in a database which is not under the ODbL"?

Because what I'm proposing doesn't require any changes server side.

I'm not against this, but I have no time or inclination for the
politics needed to get such changes implemented.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[DavidD]

2010/1/17 John Smith :
> 2010/1/18 Anthony :
>> I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
>>
>> All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
>
> That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
> readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another
> license.

OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?

It doesn't look like this idea has had very much though behind it.
It's pretty easy to see that two groups of people trying to reach the
same goal with different licenses within the same database is going to
cause friction.

-- 
DavidD

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM, John Smith wrote:

> 2010/1/18 Anthony :
> > So one person needs to anonymously download everything from OSM and put
> it
> > up on another website which doesn't have the ODbL on it.
>
> What you are suggesting is shady at best, and is no better than
> someone doing that with any other copyrighted material, it doesn't
> make it any more legal to simply take it than it would be to take MS
> word uploaded somewhere.
>

It's certainly much more legal to copy material for which you have explicit
permission to copy than to copy material which is copyrighted and for which
you don't have permission to copy.  See
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000705.htmland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflictsfor
a little taste.

Please refrain from making similar statements, it does nothing for the
> current thread which is a legitimate suggestion for those wanting a
> collection of PD data.
>

Define "PD data".  You do realize most of the world's legal system doesn't
even have the concept of releasing things into the public domain, right?

In any case, why not just have a flag on each user account which says "allow
this data to be used in a database which is not under the ODbL"?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 Frederik Ramm :
> Unless, some share-alike advocates would say, the node was created with
> reference to a point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a
> derived work.

Except lat/lon isn't copyrightable, so a point alone probably isn't
good enough to state much. If it has meta information that might be a
different matter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > Why would it be difficult? If a node was created under license X and
> > has only been edited by other users allowing license X then it's under
> > license X.
>
> Unless, some share-alike advocates would say, the node was created with
> reference to a point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a
> derived work.
>
> Also, all this is nice & dandy as long as we operate in the "protection
> of individual items" space; as soon as we move to the world of database
> protection, then all this becomes moot because you would not even be
> allowed to extract a group of PD objects from the collection without the
> permission of the database owner (unless it is considered insubstantial).
>

How exactly does one get protection as a database owner?  It's unclear to me
how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're not the ones
actually doing anything.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 Anthony :
> So one person needs to anonymously download everything from OSM and put it
> up on another website which doesn't have the ODbL on it.

What you are suggesting is shady at best, and is no better than
someone doing that with any other copyrighted material, it doesn't
make it any more legal to simply take it than it would be to take MS
word uploaded somewhere.

Please refrain from making similar statements, it does nothing for the
current thread which is a legitimate suggestion for those wanting a
collection of PD data.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Why would it be difficult? If a node was created under license X and
> has only been edited by other users allowing license X then it's under
> license X.

Unless, some share-alike advocates would say, the node was created with 
reference to a point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a 
derived work.

Also, all this is nice & dandy as long as we operate in the "protection 
of individual items" space; as soon as we move to the world of database 
protection, then all this becomes moot because you would not even be 
allowed to extract a group of PD objects from the collection without the 
permission of the database owner (unless it is considered insubstantial).

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:24 AM, John Smith wrote:

> 2010/1/18 Anthony :
> > I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
> >
> > All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
>
> That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
> readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another
> license.
>

So one person needs to anonymously download everything from OSM and put it
up on another website which doesn't have the ODbL on it.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 Anthony :
> I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
>
> All contributions are effectively PD anyway.

That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another
license.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
>
> All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
>

Or, will be when/if the new contributor terms are adopted.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:54 AM, John Smith wrote:

> 2010/1/18 Anthony :
> > That's not how the ODBL works.  When the switch is made to the ODBL,
> every
> > individual changeset/node/way/etc will be effectively in the PD (everyone
> in
> > the world will have a non-revocable license to do anything restricted by
> > copyright law).  Only the database as a whole will be under ODBL.
>
> I don't know enough about ODBL to argue that point, but it seems to be
> irrelevent since getting the data out the other end as PD is what is
> important to some.
>
> If this isn't a valid method (waits for some more armchair lawyers to
> turn up), then the other option is to have editors upload data to
> multiple locations if the desired outcome is to have a set of PD
> information.
>

I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.

All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/18 Anthony :
> That's not how the ODBL works.  When the switch is made to the ODBL, every
> individual changeset/node/way/etc will be effectively in the PD (everyone in
> the world will have a non-revocable license to do anything restricted by
> copyright law).  Only the database as a whole will be under ODBL.

I don't know enough about ODBL to argue that point, but it seems to be
irrelevent since getting the data out the other end as PD is what is
important to some.

If this isn't a valid method (waits for some more armchair lawyers to
turn up), then the other option is to have editors upload data to
multiple locations if the desired outcome is to have a set of PD
information.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Anthony]

That's not how the ODBL works.  When the switch is made to the ODBL, every
individual changeset/node/way/etc will be effectively in the PD (everyone in
the world will have a non-revocable license to do anything restricted by
copyright law).  Only the database as a whole will be under ODBL.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:36 PM, John Smith wrote:

> Currently there is a lot of debate over licenses, some people want to
> change from cc-by-sa to odbl and yet others keep pushing for things to
> go to public domain.
>
> I was chatting with one such person in favour of PD on the phone
> yesterday about this, one thought that occurred to me was to have data
> tagged with license information, editors could potentially go about
> this in a number of ways, explicitly tagging nodes, ways and relations
> with the license chosen by the user, eg data:license=public_domain,
> and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
> that the changes won't be public domain. When a person explicitly
> wants ODBL/CC-BY-SA the license could be updated or stripped if it
> matches the OSM default.
>
> Alternatively the changeset could be tagged, but this would be a lot
> more difficult for editors to "know" what is PD and what isn't if the
> changeset contains a mix of both.
>
> While I personally favour a share alike type license, some don't and
> this might be a way to make the majority of people happier.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/17 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason :
> Why would it be difficult? If a node was created under license X and
> has only been edited by other users allowing license X then it's under
> license X.

If I understand correctly, Roy thinks this might start a free for all
on licenses, which could complicate things very quickly, however my
suggestions on this only cover cc-by-sa and PD, anything else would be
too complicated, I suppose someone with enough time on their hands
might be able to figure out path ways.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 08:34, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Smith  
> wrote:
> ...
>> and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
>> that the changes won't be public domain.
>
> Nice idea, but the main difficulty I see is that contributing to
> openstreetmap is a collaborative process - if you allow for different
> licenses within the DB I think it will be difficult to classify even a
> single node/way as "having" a particular license.

Why would it be difficult? If a node was created under license X and
has only been edited by other users allowing license X then it's under
license X.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

2010/1/17 Roy Wallace :
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Smith  
> wrote:
> ...
>> and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
>> that the changes won't be public domain.
>
> Nice idea, but the main difficulty I see is that contributing to
> openstreetmap is a collaborative process - if you allow for different
> licenses within the DB I think it will be difficult to classify even a
> single node/way as "having" a particular license.

PD isn't a license, so much as a choice, ODBL can take PD data, but
you can't take ODBL data and make it PD, so in this respect it's a
fairly straight forward issue.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[Roy Wallace]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Smith  wrote:
...
> and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
> that the changes won't be public domain.

Nice idea, but the main difficulty I see is that contributing to
openstreetmap is a collaborative process - if you allow for different
licenses within the DB I think it will be difficult to classify even a
single node/way as "having" a particular license.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

[John Smith]

Currently there is a lot of debate over licenses, some people want to
change from cc-by-sa to odbl and yet others keep pushing for things to
go to public domain.

I was chatting with one such person in favour of PD on the phone
yesterday about this, one thought that occurred to me was to have data
tagged with license information, editors could potentially go about
this in a number of ways, explicitly tagging nodes, ways and relations
with the license chosen by the user, eg data:license=public_domain,
and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
that the changes won't be public domain. When a person explicitly
wants ODBL/CC-BY-SA the license could be updated or stripped if it
matches the OSM default.

Alternatively the changeset could be tagged, but this would be a lot
more difficult for editors to "know" what is PD and what isn't if the
changeset contains a mix of both.

While I personally favour a share alike type license, some don't and
this might be a way to make the majority of people happier.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk