Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Now that the dust has (hopefully) settled a little on this thread... Whilst it's not actually in my job description to try and move forward on how NearMap deals with the proposed OSM licence change, I'm going to try anyway. Having trawled back through endless discussions, what I'm after are responses (preferably by those actively engaged in pushing forward the relicensing process) to these questions: 1. Is the ODbl fixed now, so that we can unleash expensive lawyers on an analysis of it? 2. Are the new contributor terms fixed, so we know whether there are to be any changes to the wording, *specifically the wording that covers future changes to the licence*. 3. Is there a definition proposed for what constitutes a free and open licence, with regard to the wording in the contributor terms about potential changes to the licence. As ever, we are *not* trying to influence the debate; NearMap aims to support OSM and generation of mapping data. But we have a whole bunch of ongoing work (including a load of it that's on my personal to-do list) that is heavily affected by the relicensing, and I'd like to try and get some clarity. Just to clarify; we don't (pending legal review) have any known problem yet with ODbl, but we do have concerns over the potential for derived works based on our data to be relicensed under some new, as yet undefined, licence at some point in the future. This posting also emailed (slightly changed) to le...@osmfoundation.org. Cheers Ben -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote: Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if there is no copyright protection on the CC-BY-SA licensed dataset that does not mean the OSMF can do anything it wants with the data. There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Not all members of OSMF are contributors. Not many contributors are members of OSMF. Moral issues aside... ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa would be a contract, wouldn't it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John Smith schrieb: On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa would be a contract, wouldn't it? Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used in OSM? Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 18:32, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: John Smith schrieb: On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa would be a contract, wouldn't it? Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used in OSM? This, I think: http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsaction=history ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason schrieb: Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used in OSM? This, I think: http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsaction=history I meant ALL of them including this one the very first mapper no. 1 has signed ... ;-) ... not only the history of the CT proposed ... Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not. Or it protects the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly, depending on who you ask. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not. Or it protects the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly, depending on who you ask. On second though, put the quotes around it too, since the purpose of CC-BY-SA is more to selectively unprotect the work than to protect it. Copyright law is what protects the work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.comwrote: Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need I believe that as long as the licence must be share-alike (for a given definition of share-alike), that should work, yes. Seems to me also that would address the concerns of a number of other contributors to the discussion, but I don't pretend to have followed in the exhaustive detail to know if the LWP had a good reason not to write it that way from the start :) Cheers b -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19/07/10 03:07, Nathan Edgars II wrote: SteveC-2 wrote: And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on such counts. If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give them as little power as possible over the data and its license. Name calling is the least of our problems at this stage! I don't think Steve was speaking in an official OSMF capacity on this one. But I do think we need to balance the power of OSMF and the contributors. It reminds me of Greek vs. modern political philosophy - the former considered who should rule?, the later considers how do we tame the rulers?. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, you wrote: No... it slithered out from the 7th Circle of Hell, spawned by the Evil LWG and her commander Mike of Norse. The Brethren Thirteen (the Evil Number) hath rendered blah blah blah... Seriously - where do you guys get off with these dark mutterings? The CT's didn't 'creep out quietly', you just weren't paying attention. You don't have to cast these vague aspersions on the LWG to make your point. Steve I don't find this sort of reply advances the arguments at all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote: In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others. I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse will be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a routable dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As we approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it. And how will ODbL stop that? Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either. I suppose you could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a slightly different argument. Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop license abuse. Anyway. Let me make two points: My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences. The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual license change. That means that people will vote differently and perhaps to the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license change decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no 'theoretically' are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If anyone here has a degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave around all kinds of textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like this when you have no real incentives - for example asking people if they'd pay for and go to a gym to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to do those things and never do. Indeed. That is the whole point of having such a vote. It allows people to express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum. It's long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head. The LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that. No wonder there's an outcry at each step in the process. Please, put the gun away. Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. You're the one with the gun. What you say goes. If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but hey) then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If we all agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the drawing board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote. In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for no particular reason. Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so people can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan. If it turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then you can consider things at that stage. Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data to be put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and data growth graphs. It's really not as bad as it looks, even under a bad scenario like 50%. My second point - have a think on what affect you're all having on the people in the LWG. They've now been working on this for _years_ meeting every week. That's a huge amount of effort and investment. These are good people doing their best to find a way forward. But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill up ... This is clearly a symptom of the problem. Perhaps they aren't doing the right thing or not doing it in the right way. Are we supposed to go along with what they say just because they've been working very hard on it. They should at least be trying to work on the right thing. with new things they should do which leads to a steady state - they complete one task and then are given a new one to do without actually approaching the goal. They have to balance this with a fair number of people complaining that it's taking them forever to get anywhere. That's not a fun situation to be in. For years. Very few of us here with all these opinions and time on the mailing list - whether they are good, bad or ugly opinions - have the time, whatever our position for or against the license etc, to sit through this stuff week after week in the
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. I thought it was just a mindless attack, since I'm currently a stay-at-home father, not a stay-at-home son, and I don't even have a basement. When facts aren't on his side, SteveC likes to make up false shit and start hurling it around. Par for the course and not very surprising. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. I thought it was just a mindless attack, since I'm currently a stay-at-home father, not a stay-at-home son, and I don't even have a basement. When I lived with my parents I stayed in the basement. Coincidentally when I started OSM'ing I moved out of my parents house and live with my wife now. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I said and twisted it 180 degrees. Gun to your head? I'm not even on the LWG. Quashing discussion? All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG. There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming from? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote: In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others. I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse will be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a routable dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As we approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it. And how will ODbL stop that? Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either. I suppose you could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a slightly different argument. Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop license abuse. Anyway. Let me make two points: My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences. The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual license change. That means that people will vote differently and perhaps to the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license change decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no 'theoretically' are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If anyone here has a degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave around all kinds of textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like this when you have no real incentives - for example asking people if they'd pay for and go to a gym to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to do those things and never do. Indeed. That is the whole point of having such a vote. It allows people to express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum. It's long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head. The LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that. No wonder there's an outcry at each step in the process. Please, put the gun away. Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. You're the one with the gun. What you say goes. If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but hey) then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If we all agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the drawing board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote. In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for no particular reason. Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so people can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan. If it turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then you can consider things at that stage. Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data to be put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and data growth graphs. It's really not as bad as it looks, even under a bad scenario like 50%. My second point - have a think on what affect you're all having on the people in the LWG. They've now been working on this for _years_ meeting every week. That's a huge amount of effort and investment. These are good people doing their best to find a way forward. But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill up ... This is clearly a symptom of the problem. Perhaps they aren't doing the right thing or not doing it in the right way. Are we supposed to go along with what they say just because they've been working very hard on it. They should at least be trying to work on the right thing. with new things
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 20 July 2010 00:41, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Gun to your head? It certainly feels like it from my point of view... All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG. There is definitely communications problems here, not to mention conflicting agendas at work, you can't please everyone all the time, but it seems to be a priority to try and please people in future at the expense of people in the present moment. There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming I don't know about 80n, but since I started looking into how much data will possibly be not carried over it's become very disheartening that there will be a lot of hard work simply disappear. As others have pointed out this whole relicensing thing is holding OSM back, people don't want to potentially waste more time and effort if in the end it will no longer be allowed in OSM's main DB. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I said and twisted it 180 degrees. So, really, you agree with me, but I've just twisted it so that it appears that you disagree with me? ;) If I've mis-interpreted what you said then please clarify your meaning. Gun to your head? This objection was made by Ulf Lamping in December 2009 [1]. The LWG has failed to address this issue. The LWG is directed by OSMF and, you, the chairman of OSMF have just said I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. The LWG appears to listen to your comments more closely than Ulf's. They have chosen to ignore this issue. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24450.html Quashing discussion? Your attitude is well documented, for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24483.html All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG. What you said was But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill up ... What I thought was maybe there's a reason for that. There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming from? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote: In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others. I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse will be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a routable dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As we approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it. And how will ODbL stop that? Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either. I suppose you could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a slightly different argument. Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop license abuse. Anyway. Let me make two points: My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences. The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual license change. That means that people will vote differently and perhaps to the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license change decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no 'theoretically' are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If anyone here has a degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave around all kinds of textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like this when you have no real incentives - for example asking people if they'd pay for and go to a gym to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to do those things and never do. Indeed. That is the whole point of having such a vote. It allows people to express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum. It's long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head. The LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that. No wonder there's an outcry at each step in the process. Please, put the gun away. Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. You're the one with the gun. What you say goes. If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but hey) then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If we all agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the drawing board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote. In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for no particular reason. Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so people can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan. If it turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then you can consider things at that stage. Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to the license change then you
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. I thought it was just a mindless attack, since I'm currently a stay-at-home father, not a stay-at-home son, and I don't even have a basement. When facts aren't on his side, SteveC likes to make up false shit and start hurling it around. Par for the course and not very surprising. Oh bollocks, you just want to be able to throw insults my way and not have me respond. If I respond in kind then you act surprised and upset and try to hide the fact that you were the one throwing insults in the first place. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if there is no copyright protection on the CC-BY-SA licensed dataset that does not mean the OSMF can do anything it wants with the data. Moral issues aside... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, On 17 July 2010 10:34, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Michael Barabanov wrote: 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. This is true but I am pretty convinced that (1) would lead to people saying: Ah, OpenStreetMap, those guys that re-licence their stuff at will. - We would be thrown in with people like CDDB. Ironically I wouldn't mind if OSMF did that, this way taking the blame for it on itself. Me and other mappers in my area have spent man-months of work adapting and merging somebody else's CC-By-SA map data and none of us will be able to accept the Contributor Terms. So if OSMF takes the burden of telling the people who collected that data sorry, your license wasn't valid, then all the better for us :) (some background) AFAIK the majority of data currently in OSM in Poland comes from that other project, which still has lots more contributors than OSM here. Because of this, and the license limbo state, most OSM mappers in Poland are currently spinning on idle unsure of whether all their work will soon be removed from osm and will only be available in an old planet snapshot, unusable for users of the data who would have to join the two dataset (new osm and old osm). Any new edits are also based on that data so mostly anything you do is bound to be removed. There's lots of uncertainty on the forums, some people keep on adapting and importing more data, then on the other hand some of the users registered after May 12 are being told that they in particular can't use this data for their own area because they have signed up on different license conditions than older users and may be infringing on that other project's license if they did (but then maybe not). Yet other users would be happy to register a new user account and already start wiping out Poland and start mapping from scratch just so we can plunge forward instead of waiting indefinitely. This is not helped by the legal working group not answering to these mappers' questions, several people on the polish forum said they had mailed the legal alias about lwg's opinion on this By-SA data to never get a response. I tried raising the question on the legal list at least once and also never got any reply (other than a RichardF's unhelpful comment that the other project's license is invalid then). Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 20:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for their agreement? It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the work and expect those effected the most to be doing all the leg work to clean up the mess this license change over is causing or going to cause. Especially when the new Contributor Terms aren't even attribution or share alike compatible, which means that only CC0/PD and relicensed data will be compatible. Beyond the government imported data in Australia (about 1/4 to 1/3rd the current data) we also have Nearmap Aerial imagery, while they might agree with ODBL, they may not agree with Contributor Terms, at present their terms explicitly state derived data can only be licensed under cc-by-sa, they have been asked about ODBL and may agree to it but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well. This is before we figure out how much other data won't be transferred across due to non-responses or people that disagree with the new license. I can't see this ending well, it'll completely devastate and demoralise the Australian community. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well. I just received a reply, Nearmap will only allow derived data to be licensed under a share alike license, which means any data derived from their imagery, while compatible with ODBL, isn't compatible with the new CTs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:19:53PM +1000, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well. I just received a reply, Nearmap will only allow derived data to be licensed under a share alike license, which means any data derived from their imagery, while compatible with ODBL, isn't compatible with the new CTs. Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing) clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place. If it is changed to allow relicensing to another share alike license (probably quite difficult to describe legally without, uh, writing a license) with the 2/3 majority would that be acceptable? If the alternative licenses are completely removed from the contributor terms would that fix it? Is there an issue with using the DbCL for the contents of the database? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 21:43, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing) clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place. Yup, the license could be changed to a non-share alike license in future, and some people are trying to push things toward PD/CC0 licenses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:54:36PM +1000, John Smith wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have done both their own surveys, the data from which they might be happy to relicense, and derivatives of other data (Nearmap, Yahoo!, etc), which they may not be able to relicense. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have That may be ok, but the CTs go a step further and have future licenses as being fairly open ended, which makes your next point valid: done both their own surveys, the data from which they might be happy to relicense, and derivatives of other data (Nearmap, Yahoo!, etc), which they may not be able to relicense. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John, John Smith wrote: It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the work and expect those effected the most to be doing all the leg work to clean up the mess this license change over is causing or going to cause. It was an honest question - I don't know the Polish project Andrzej was talking of and it may just be possible to somehow email the contributors and ask them. It didn't sound like a project where they have imported tons of stuff from commercial/government providers like you have in Australia, it sounded more like you'd be working with human beings. I can't see this ending well, it'll completely devastate and demoralise the Australian community. Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) Problem is, the principled objectors could also decline to sue OSMF and instead threaten to sue users of OSM data that contains their contributions. *We* believe such threats to be empty, but consider our users - one of the reasons for ODbL is to achieve a legal certainty about using our data. Would all this not lead to people *again* shying away from OSM for fear of some poisoned bits of data? I don't think that Michael was actually proposing that we actually do this, more just use it to get an idea of if people agree to the principle of moving to ODbL if the data loss issue wasn't an issue. I think that the majority would, there will be a few exceptions but IMHO ODbL is a much better license. From what I can tell most of the current descent is around what to do about CC-BY-SA data imports where the provider can't or won't relicense, or contributers that we can't contact. Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) Problem is, the principled objectors could also decline to sue OSMF and instead threaten to sue users of OSM data that contains their contributions. *We* believe such threats to be empty, but consider our users - one of the reasons for ODbL is to achieve a legal certainty about using our data. Would all this not lead to people *again* shying away from OSM for fear of some poisoned bits of data? I don't think that Michael was actually proposing that we actually do this, more just use it to get an idea of if people agree to the principle of moving to ODbL if the data loss issue wasn't an issue. I think that the majority would, there will be a few exceptions but IMHO ODbL is a much better license. From what I can tell most of the current descent is around what to do about CC-BY-SA data imports where the provider can't or won't relicense, or contributers that we can't contact. Cheers Chris I dont think this is getting more inclusive at all, though the subject of the message suggests so. For OSM users like me, who are only interested in contributing GPS tracks and sketching JOSM tracks and not at all bothered about the legalese, this is absolute nonsense. For one, I dont care if my data gets used by anyone and everyone else, much like Frederik Ramm. So, if someone could, in real layman terms explain to me what all this means, I would appreciate. And I assume and hope, there are many more users like me. Cheers, Shalabh -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 20:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: snip It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) I would rather we just relicensed and if contributors object then we delete their contributions. That way I would think it unlikely anyone would get sued and we'd lose the absolute minimum of data, rather than deleting loads of data just because some contributors haven't kept their email addresses up-to-date even though they would probably agree to the change if we could contact them. We could ask everyone upfront if they were likely to object to the change and so remove most of the uncertainty there might be. I don't think this is like the CDDB case at all as they had less honourable motives as I understand them. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote: In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others. I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse will be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a routable dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As we approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it. Anyway. Let me make two points: My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences. The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual license change. That means that people will vote differently and perhaps to the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license change decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no 'theoretically' are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If anyone here has a degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave around all kinds of textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like this when you have no real incentives - for example asking people if they'd pay for and go to a gym to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to do those things and never do. Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but hey) then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If we all agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the drawing board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote. In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for no particular reason. Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so people can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan. If it turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then you can consider things at that stage. Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data to be put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and data growth graphs. It's really not as bad as it looks, even under a bad scenario like 50%. My second point - have a think on what affect you're all having on the people in the LWG. They've now been working on this for _years_ meeting every week. That's a huge amount of effort and investment. These are good people doing their best to find a way forward. But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill up with new things they should do which leads to a steady state - they complete one task and then are given a new one to do without actually approaching the goal. They have to balance this with a fair number of people complaining that it's taking them forever to get anywhere. That's not a fun situation to be in. For years. Very few of us here with all these opinions and time on the mailing list - whether they are good, bad or ugly opinions - have the time, whatever our position for or against the license etc, to sit through this stuff week after week in the working group and push this stuff forward. I'm worried that we're going to burn the guys on the LWG out. They must feel like they're in some kafka-esque dialogue with no upside for them. They chose to be on the working group and do all this work of course, but the worst thing that could happen is that they conclude that it will take another couple of years to get anywhere and decide to go and do something more useful with their time. I know for a fact that some of them don't even read some of these mailing lists anymore because of it. So why don't we just cool off a bit and give them a nod of thanks before diving on with this stuff - whatever direction it goes in. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 22:51, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? Most likely ODBL is fine, it's the CTs that is the biggest hurdle. Allowing one company or organisation to dictate the projects license or direction isn't a good idea. It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we should do, so they can just use our data. Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Is it really a valid argument that we should do whatever Google or Nearmap say we should do, when all of their competitors are happy to work with us? I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Nearmap isn't dictating any terms, other than you can only use their data under a share alike license so no need to lump them in with Google. However I have a fairly good idea how much information has been added in regional areas that wouldn't exist otherwise. I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. You go on and on about how if 50% disappear wait a short time and it'll magically appear within a short period of time, I call BS, if the tiger data was dumped from OSM how long exactly would it take to regather it? How demoralising would it be on the people that fixed up the tiger data? Combined with people that don't respond or don't agree it would set the Aussie community back to the stone age effectively, and it will actively turn away new contributors because they won't want the same thing to happen to their efforts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we should do, so they can just use our data. Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official word from them on ODBL or the new CTs? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:46 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Nearmap isn't dictating any terms, other than you can only use their data under a share alike license so no need to lump them in with Google. However I have a fairly good idea how much information has been added in regional areas that wouldn't exist otherwise. I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. You go on and on about how if 50% disappear wait a short time and it'll magically appear within a short period of time, Could you point to where I go on and on about it? I'm aware of only mentioning it once, in the above email? I call BS, if the tiger data was dumped from OSM how long exactly would it take to regather it? How demoralising would it be on the people that fixed up the tiger data? Combined with people that don't respond or don't agree it would set the Aussie community back to the stone age effectively, and it will actively turn away new contributors because they won't want the same thing to happen to their efforts. John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? 2) I don't think anyone wants to start relicensing any time soon after the odbl gets implemented or rejected. I think everyone would want a holiday. And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:48 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we should do, so they can just use our data. Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official word from them on ODBL or the new CTs? We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and were just waiting for the actual changeover. Perhaps naively I told them it wouldn't take too long :-) Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, I am a complete outsider regarding the licensing debate (and, to be honest, to the whole OSM project... I barely started mapping a few hiking trails). That being said, here is the main thing I wonder about : **Is the license change a real choice or a kind of legal obligation ?** The reason I ask is because, by looking at this thread, I feel like some people view it as important, and others see how depressing it is for the mapping community... But do we have the choice ? If the move is for pure theoretical, GNU/Stallman-like ideology, then it is likely to create way more damage than it would save. However, if the move is about saving the project from a legal perspective, then it's probably better to start tackling the issue now rather than having a court shut down the project 5 years from now when most of the planet is mapped... regards, Sami Dalouche On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 03:46 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Nearmap isn't dictating any terms, other than you can only use their data under a share alike license so no need to lump them in with Google. However I have a fairly good idea how much information has been added in regional areas that wouldn't exist otherwise. I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. You go on and on about how if 50% disappear wait a short time and it'll magically appear within a short period of time, I call BS, if the tiger data was dumped from OSM how long exactly would it take to regather it? How demoralising would it be on the people that fixed up the tiger data? Combined with people that don't respond or don't agree it would set the Aussie community back to the stone age effectively, and it will actively turn away new contributors because they won't want the same thing to happen to their efforts. ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map data being share alike. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. 2) I don't think anyone wants to start relicensing any time soon after the odbl gets implemented or rejected. I think everyone would want a holiday. Some people are threatening to have the license changed to CC0 already, how serious they are about that is another matter. And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points. I'm not just saying no any more, I'm already past that, if the CTs aren't amended we are prepared to fork the aussie data, there is just too much data going to be lost and suddenly things go from OSM having a whiter than white respect to copyright, to being overly messy, either cc-by-sa is valid or it isn't and in which case the existing data carries on. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:02, Sami Dalouche sko...@free.fr wrote: If the move is for pure theoretical, GNU/Stallman-like ideology, then it is likely to create way more damage than it would save. However, if the move is about saving the project from a legal perspective, then it's probably better to start tackling the issue now rather than having a court shut down the project 5 years from now when most of the planet is mapped... You have it backwards, it's about people trying to prevent companies taking advantage of OSM, and OSM getting them shut down if it needed to go that far. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and were just waiting for the actual changeover. That covers current licenses, what about if OSM goes CC0/PD like some would like and which the current CTs would allow more easily? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:01 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map data being share alike. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. Do you think nearmap are being reasonable? I don't think they are. There are a variety of downsides with working with open communities - one of them is that they are flexible and change over time with many different opinions. A bunch of people here wanted that change in section 3 (do you agree that was reasonable?). I don't think we can change OSM sufficiently to cater to nearmaps terms of interaction if they are that static - or the hundreds of other companies who will then have their own demands and terms of interaction. Someone, somewhere (namely the LWG) has to make a balance between those who want nearmap and those who want those CT changes. I think they should probably go with the new CTs sadly rather than go with nearmap. It's not a nice choice but I don't see any alternatives, do you? Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:05 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and were just waiting for the actual changeover. That covers current licenses, what about if OSM goes CC0/PD like some would like and which the current CTs would allow more easily? I think all the individuals that I spoke to then have since left Y! The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:08, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Do you think nearmap are being reasonable? I don't think they are. Why are we changing to another share alike license if this isn't reasonable? I fail to see the logic here. There are a variety of downsides with working with open communities - one of them is that they are flexible and change over time with many different opinions. A bunch of people here wanted that change in section 3 (do you agree that was reasonable?). I don't think we can change OSM sufficiently to cater to nearmaps terms of interaction if they are that static - or the hundreds of other companies who will then have their own demands and terms of interaction. As I said before, anyone who has used Nearmap imagery will not legally be able to agree to the current CT because it would breach their contract with Nearmap, on the other hand is it reasonable of OSM to force people into an open ended agreement about what an open and free license might be 10 years from now? Someone, somewhere (namely the LWG) has to make a balance between those who want nearmap and those who want those CT changes. I think they should probably go with the new CTs sadly rather than go with nearmap. It's not a nice choice but I don't see any alternatives, do you? This is the unfortunate conclusion that seems to be occurring, so basically there will be a fork and as unfortunate as it will be the new CT is too unreasonable to my pragmatic goals of build an open map of Australia, as I said before it would be about the same as removing the Tiger data and any data derived from it from the US, where would the US end up? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'm not talking about end users of the data, but companies suppling either aerial imagery or other data, like AND for example, how would they feel if all attribution was stripped from their contributions to OSM? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18/07/10 19:11, SteveC wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. And yet BSD continues to be maintained and updated, while coexisting with a similar share-alike project (Linux). So that shows how much most companies know. I don't see BSD as much more or less fragmented than linux (given the whole Google/Android kernel branch being left to rot.) Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending to produced works, and the ODBL has been drafted specifically to avoid this. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html Most cared mostly about attribution and share alike on the data only. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map data being share alike. And under ODbL the map data is share alike. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to. This keeps bringing up the issue of OSM's whiter than white copyright policy, and what happens if the license does change in future to non-share alike, do we start purging more data from the main data base, how many times would this be acceptable before people stopped contributing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to. This keeps bringing up the issue of OSM's whiter than white copyright policy, and what happens if the license does change in future to non-share alike, do we start purging more data from the main data base, how many times would this be acceptable before people stopped contributing? You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John. Suddenly, in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license change and the next license change after that? I don't see it happening. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 05:37, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John. Suddenly, in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license change and the next license change after that? I don't see it happening. If you are going to get picky at least use the right term, hypothetical, since theories can be tested and at this point in time they can't be, that doesn't mean they won't be in future, which is why section 3 of the new CTs in incompatible with existing data. If things are so certainly going to stay more or less as they are, what is the harm in defining 'free and open' more explicitly to include an attribution/share alike licenses only? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 12:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: andrzej zaborowski wrote: AFAIK the majority of data currently in OSM in Poland comes from that other project, which still has lots more contributors than OSM here. Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for their agreement? That's kind of what I'd like to do when we know exactly what we want them to agree to. Currently we don't. However my current thinking is for these contributors to be able to opt out, rather than opt in. I know that is not legally the right way to do it, but since this whole situation is legally blurred and I'd feel morally okay that way, I can probably take the risk of somebody getting upset on me. Technically I can't contact all of the authors because the project I talked about takes anonymous contributions through their bugzilla, and even if it didn't, they don't have per-object history, their repository is a CVS of text files with 9 years of commit history. We also know they had some amount of imports but documentation is scarce (mostly in the form or forums). Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending to produced works, and the ODBL has been drafted specifically to avoid this. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html Most cared mostly about attribution and share alike on the data only. It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending to produced works, and the ODBL has been drafted specifically to avoid this. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html Most cared mostly about attribution and share alike on the data only. It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM. Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage sharing the underlying data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though: 1) Why we need CT in first place 2) What section 3 is about Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18/07/10 21:22, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage sharing the underlying data? Share-alike of the underlying data is a separate issue from share-alike produced works (obviously). I am aware that ODbL doesn't do produced work share-alike because certain parties want to layer proprietary data with OSM data. I am saying that share-alike produced works would also encourage the sharing of data. Any data that is encorprated into a share-alike produced work can then be rolled back into OSM, not to mention making the rendering and colours available for reuse. This is the intention of the current license (although how effective it is is a separate controversy). What I fail to see is if share-alike is good one one case, why not in the other? TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM. Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage sharing the underlying data? ODbL doesn't even cover the underlying data. And so far no one has answered the question as to how produced works aren't a huge loophole. If someone creates a produced work with the data and licenses the produced work under CC-BY, what stops someone else from taking that produced work, extracting the data, and now having the data under CC-BY? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though: 1) Why we need CT in first place 2) What section 3 is about http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. An active contributor is defined as: a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
2010/7/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though: 1) Why we need CT in first place 2) What section 3 is about http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. An active contributor is defined as: a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is), CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right? Will it be a problem to add small addition to this section 3 or another share alike free and open license? Or it will destroy someone's dream about publishing those data under BSD like or PD some day? :) Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 06:44, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is), CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right? The CT is also likely to conflict with cc-by data... Will it be a problem to add small addition to this section 3 or another share alike free and open license? Or it will destroy someone's dream about publishing those data under BSD like or PD some day? :) If people were being honest they wouldn't try to sneak things in like this... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007. In 2007 I was not aware of an attempt to relicense OSM, but it was probably started by then. What I read on signup was CC-by-SA, and no talk of any future change. Then ODBL was presented, with a fanfare, and later the Contributor Terms crept out, more quietly. At the stage of announcement of ODBL we were already using CC-by-SA data from the Australian government. At a later date this data was changed to CC-by, and we would be able to retain it under ODBL, but not with the Contributor Terms which had by then been published. Nearmap chose to make their orthophotos available to OSM under the current licence, CC-by-SA. The email to a few of us yesterday indicated firmly that Share-Alike was very important to NearMap, and that there is no possibility of the share alike being removed at a later stage. So ODBL contributor terms which preserve share-alike would possibly be acceptable. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. Hi Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest. Just basic game theory. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:18 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'm not talking about end users of the data, but companies suppling either aerial imagery or other data, like AND for example, how would they feel if all attribution was stripped from their contributions to OSM? Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution? Here's another scenario - You could say to nearmap that when we switch over to odbl they switch off the aerial imagery but allow us to keep using the data so far under the odbl. When things have settled down in X number of months and they see we're not going to jump license again any time soon then they can start letting us use the imagery again? Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, On 18 July 2010 19:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points. Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not accepting and what I would have trouble accepting. If the LWG is trying to minimise the number of people unhappy with the changeover process, they're doing a bad job (see poll below). The have not asked (that I know) the community on the mailing list whether the CT should make the OSMF the licensing body and make the authors grant these rights to the OSMF. To any arguments that rose so far about this point, I've only seen the members of LWG explain for umpteenth time why they think it's important for OSMF to have these rights. Some people agree that it would be good for OSMF to be able to change the license in the future, some people don't. But nearly nobody thinks that this is so important as to sacrifice for example the ability to import ODbL licensed databases, and basically remove the SA of our license as John points out. Here's an old poll (not very widely publicised) that shows this and which I've never seen the LWG respond to: http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. Hi Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest. Just basic game theory. I guess I'll count you as one of the less bright ones. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Liz wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007. In 2007 I was not aware of an attempt to relicense OSM, but it was probably started by then. What I read on signup was CC-by-SA, and no talk of any future change. Then ODBL was presented, with a fanfare, and later the Contributor Terms crept out, more quietly. No... it slithered out from the 7th Circle of Hell, spawned by the Evil LWG and her commander Mike of Norse. The Brethren Thirteen (the Evil Number) hath rendered blah blah blah... Seriously - where do you guys get off with these dark mutterings? The CT's didn't 'creep out quietly', you just weren't paying attention. You don't have to cast these vague aspersions on the LWG to make your point. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 19, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. Hi Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest. Just basic game theory. I guess I'll count you as one of the less bright ones. And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on such counts. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not accepting and what I would have trouble accepting. I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 01:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not accepting and what I would have trouble accepting. I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I meant it just in the same way somebody presented the position of Yahoo in this thread, and elsewhere we're saying don't trace from Google maps as their terms don't allow that even though possibly nobody from Google has said it in the given thread. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
SteveC-2 wrote: And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on such counts. Steve stevecoast.com If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give them as little power as possible over the data and its license. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/What-could-we-do-to-make-this-licences-discussion-more-inclusive-tp5292284p5310435.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 07:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution? Surprisingly no, they don't require attribution, which is weird in and of itself, but do require any derived map data to be made available under a share alike license, so that they can make use of it. They give us free use of their imagery in return they get to use the data, which seems fair and equitable to me. Here's another scenario - You could say to nearmap that when we switch over to odbl they switch off the aerial imagery but allow us to keep using the data so far under the odbl. When things have settled down in X number of months and they see we're not going to jump license again any time soon then they can start letting us use the imagery again? We all have our own agendas and biases, but you can't say 2 or 3 years or even 6 months from now that the derived data won't suddenly be pushed under a different, non-share alike license. At that point there is no sections that cover incompatible license data, in fact just the opposite, the data continues under a different license if enough active contributors agree, which is why even cc-by data won't be compatible. Even with the most honourable intentions none of us can know what the future will bring, but I can only point and push for things in my interests, which at this stage section 3 of the new CTs ain't it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I'll emailed them privately and asked them just like anyone else can, I didn't ask to republish their email but even if you don't believe me their current terms spell out their current position, that is a share alike license like CC-by-SA: http://www.nearmap.com/products/free-commercial-licence If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to others under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 12:07, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give them as little power as possible over the data and its license. Just ignore the rants, some people are just venting frustration. I know how to vent frustration :) It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 12:35, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. I think it's a bit late to be talking about bylaws, OSM-F already exists, and there is likely to be too many self serving factions to push through such a fundamental change as this. Just look at how hard it is to go from one share alike license to another. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 10:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I'll emailed them privately and asked them just like anyone else can, I didn't ask to republish their email but even if you don't believe me their current terms spell out their current position, that is a share alike license like CC-by-SA As John has, quite correctly, been polite enough not to share Stuart Nixon's email reply with the list, here it is below (release approved by Stuart): NearMap is keen to continue to support OSM with our PhotoMaps (noting that in the future we will be expanding to Europe and other areas). As our PhotoMaps are central to our business, we can only offer them under a CC-BY-SA (or similar) license, and the license must preserve this (e.g. not take away these rights at a later date). It is critical to us that the license is Share Alike, so it must be CC-BY-SA style, not CC-BY style. In a separate email (to Liz Dodd, cc John), Stuart added: We are watching what is going on with some concern. I'm not sure what we will do if OSM splinters; as you may know there are already other groups working on street maps, and we don't support them as we would rather work with a single open community. Perhaps you could contact Yahoo to see what their view is on where OSM is going; I would guess they would have similar requirements to ourselves. If OSM became aware of the issues a non-CC-BY-SA style license, or one that can change in the future, causes for commercial groups trying to support OSM, then perhaps they can tune the process to continue to encourage commercial support. It is worth noting that in the longer term NearMap plans to cover much more of the world's population, and we do hope we can continue to work with OSM. It's probably also worth quoting from our Copyright and Credits page ( http://www.nearmap.com/legal/copyright), which sets out our point of view: Copyrights and credits We hope you enjoy using our website and our PhotoMaps. We’ve worked very hard to bring them to you. Use of the NearMap website and PhotoMaps is governed by our licence terms/products/licence and community guidelines /products/community-guidelines. You may also refer to our Terms of Use /legal/terms-of-use for other related information. From this publication date, our website and all the images and PhotoMaps are copyrighted works that belong to NearMap Pty Ltd. [image: CC-BY-SA] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/We specifically encourage creation of Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ licensed information derived from our PhotoMap content, so that everyone can share and build a greater understanding of our planet. Credit where it is due! In creating this website, we are very grateful for the additional information from the following sources, which is provided subject to their respective copyrights and licences. OpenStreetMap We support the sharing of information and knowledge. “OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is an editable map of the whole world. It is made by people like you. OpenStreetMaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org/ allows you to view, edit and use geographical data in a collaborative way from anywhere on Earth. OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways.” — Source: http://www.openstreetmap.org Visit OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ to take part in the collaboration or read more about OSM, their disclaimers and applicable terms of use. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki You can also take it as read that many of us here at NearMap are enthusiastic mappers and OSM contributors. We're also working hard on ways to allow more people to more easily contribute data to OSM. Cheers Ben -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need. Michael. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 10:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I'll emailed them privately and asked them just like anyone else can, I didn't ask to republish their email but even if you don't believe me their current terms spell out their current position, that is a share alike license like CC-by-SA As John has, quite correctly, been polite enough not to share Stuart Nixon's email reply with the list, here it is below (release approved by Stuart): NearMap is keen to continue to support OSM with our PhotoMaps (noting that in the future we will be expanding to Europe and other areas). As our PhotoMaps are central to our business, we can only offer them under a CC-BY-SA (or similar) license, and the license must preserve this (e.g. not take away these rights at a later date). It is critical to us that the license is Share Alike, so it must be CC-BY-SA style, not CC-BY style. In a separate email (to Liz Dodd, cc John), Stuart added: We are watching what is going on with some concern. I'm not sure what we will do if OSM splinters; as you may know there are already other groups working on street maps, and we don't support them as we would rather work with a single open community. Perhaps you could contact Yahoo to see what their view is on where OSM is going; I would guess they would have similar requirements to ourselves. If OSM became aware of the issues a non-CC-BY-SA style license, or one that can change in the future, causes for commercial groups trying to support OSM, then perhaps they can tune the process to continue to encourage commercial support. It is worth noting that in the longer term NearMap plans to cover much more of the world's population, and we do hope we can continue to work with OSM. It's probably also worth quoting from our Copyright and Credits page ( http://www.nearmap.com/legal/copyright), which sets out our point of view: Copyrights and credits We hope you enjoy using our website and our PhotoMaps. We’ve worked very hard to bring them to you. Use of the NearMap website and PhotoMaps is governed by our licence termshttp://products/licence and community guidelines http://products/community-guidelines. You may also refer to our Terms of Use http://legal/terms-of-use for other related information. From this publication date, our website and all the images and PhotoMaps are copyrighted works that belong to NearMap Pty Ltd. [image: CC-BY-SA] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/We specifically encourage creation of Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ licensed information derived from our PhotoMap content, so that everyone can share and build a greater understanding of our planet. Credit where it is due! In creating this website, we are very grateful for the additional information from the following sources, which is provided subject to their respective copyrights and licences. OpenStreetMap We support the sharing of information and knowledge. “OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is an editable map of the whole world. It is made by people like you. OpenStreetMaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org/ allows you to view, edit and use geographical data in a collaborative way from anywhere on Earth. OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways.” — Source: http://www.openstreetmap.org Visit OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ to take part in the collaboration or read more about OSM, their disclaimers and applicable terms of use. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki You can also take it as read that many of us here at NearMap are enthusiastic mappers and OSM contributors. We're also working hard on ways to allow more people to more easily contribute data to OSM. Cheers Ben -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote: - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let develop such a tool. I’m still struggling with how to get such statistics without first getting an opinion—the catch‐22 I referred to earlier but John seemed to brush off without actually thinking about it. I’m in favour of a non‐binding straw poll to all OSM accounts before a “final” agree/disagree thing. Simon just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote: just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. In theory we have more problems with the new terms and conditions than ODBL, ODBL seems cc-by compatible, but the terms and conditions allow other free and open licenses which isn't cc-by compatible. All that is needed to fix this is add a stipulation for the free and open license to be attribution based and the problem, for us, disappears. The alternative isn't pretty, potentially up to 1/3rd of the data might disappear, so we are some what concerned at this point. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John Smith schrieb: On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? Liz schrieb: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, In the US. OKFN seem to think it might. After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was the subject of the case. The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That would need court hearings to determine. Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to negotiate terms - The entity representing the data does not 'own' the data and it could be argued has no right to be a party to a contract over the data ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. The grounds of the case was purely over if facts themselves could be copyrighted, the ruling was based on if individual facts within a database were covered by copyright, and as a result the database itself. However as soon as you add creative content it changes things, but from what I've been told, there won't be a final ruling on this till next year, in the meant time Telstra (owner of white/yellow pages) is going round trying to get this over turned. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Michael Barabanov schrieb: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? It's case (1) in some jurisdictions and case (2) in other jurisdictions. The OSMF can't just relicense because of the places where it is (2), but people can arguable just reuse the data in places where it is (1). There are no solution possible. Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways. And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=... Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points? And so on ... Easy, both of them - there doesn't have to be a single copyright holder for a piece of work. I don't know how to deal with the splitting-merging problem and other similar cases. OSM seems to try to take a whiter than white approach to not copying of other sources, so it would seem a bit weird to be more lax with contributor's data. Of course, the only solution that is guarantees to work is to nuke the DB and start again. I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... I don't recall that being said, but I could be wrong. A lot of us Australians posting on the list 1) don't like the ODbL a lot, and 2) wondering about all the CC-BY data we've gotten from the Govetnment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. It is beyond me how anyone can even suggest that we effectively pirate our own data and use this as a basis for a healthy project. No umm and arr from my side - just plain disbelief at such a rotten idea. 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I think pirate is quite an overstatement in this context. The proposed license is still a free/open license. Plus I kind of suspect that most contributors care about potential data loss more than CC license vs ODBL license, but I may be wrong. Still, let me advance the rotten line of thought a bit. Not that I'm advocating for anything. 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. We've no idea how big, there're technical issues for identifying the data to be removed and actually implementing removal, and there seems to be an overall sense of uncertainty until the whole thing is resolved. 3. Of course, there's a third possibility where everyone just loves ODBL and so it's a win-win. Wouldn't that be nice. On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. It is beyond me how anyone can even suggest that we effectively pirate our own data and use this as a basis for a healthy project. No umm and arr from my side - just plain disbelief at such a rotten idea. 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. This is true but I am pretty convinced that (1) would lead to people saying: Ah, OpenStreetMap, those guys that re-licence their stuff at will. - We would be thrown in with people like CDDB. I think that there are people who are against ODbL but will continue contributing if they see that this is what most project members want. I think that this number will be much smaller if OSM is seen to ignore their contributors' will. But this is only my impression; maybe one should start a poll asking: Would you find it morally acceptable to simply change the license without giving a damn for what contributors say? 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Michael Barabanov schrieb: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? You mean where is the problem in this two cases?? Frederik Ramm schrieb: In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. So subtract the shit, but without adding new shit by subtracting any data ... This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe With the changing process proposed my data isn't safe if it is partially based on work of mapper who said no or who is away. And whole data I want to use in other areas is also not safe anymore under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. The process proposed is also not a base of trust if data of mappers, who said yes, is lost. Michael Barabanov schrieb: Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I think pirate is quite an overstatement in this context. The proposed license is still a free/open license. Plus I kind of suspect that most contributors care about potential data loss more than CC license vs ODBL license, +1 but I may be wrong. -1 ;-) Still, let me advance the rotten line of thought a bit. Not that I'm advocating for anything. 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. Not only potential data loss: data loss *guaranteed* for mappers, which cannot be reached (and mappers said no to change of licence). We've no idea how big, there're technical issues for identifying the data to be removed There are no solution possible. Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways. And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=... Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points? And so on ... 3. Of course, there's a third possibility where everyone just loves ODBL and so it's a win-win. Wouldn't that be nice. Then there is still the problem of the mappers we could not contact... 4. Because of data loss we stay with CC. I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. Do you have some relevant evidence to back this assertion? I'm not aware of any case law that is close enough to our situation to have much weight. I know about telephone directories and TV listings, but the crux here is the extent to which the content of the OSM dataset is creative and thus copyrightable. Is there any case-law on this that is relevant? In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. It is beyond me how anyone can even suggest that we effectively pirate our own data and use this as a basis for a healthy project. No umm and arr from my side - just plain disbelief at such a rotten idea. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. In theory we have more problems with the new terms and conditions than ODBL, ODBL seems cc-by compatible, but the terms and conditions allow other free and open licenses which isn't cc-by compatible. All that is needed to fix this is add a stipulation for the free and open license to be attribution based and the problem, for us, disappears. The alternative isn't pretty, potentially up to 1/3rd of the data might disappear, so we are some what concerned at this point. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. And what does it mean for the data to be protected? It doesn't mean that people who *use* the data have to (offer to) release their database. It means they can't take the data, add new data, and copyright that new data. But if the data isn't copyrightable, neither the old data *nor* the new data will be copyrighted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. I'm going to reiterate the point I made above in another way. However, I'd first like to point out that I disagree that it is evil or constitutes a lack or respect for ethics for someone to use non-copyrightable facts as though they are not copyrighted. Now, with that out of the way, let's say a big huge company with lots of map data and a decent-sized legal budget decides to use OSM data as though it were not copyrighted. Presumably they'd try to do this without getting caught, but let's further say that they do get caught. Now what? Now we sue them and they have to argue in court that geodata is ineligible for copyright? Yeah right. That means their competitors can now come along and take all of *their* data, and there's nothing at all that they can do about it. Seems incredibly unlikely to me. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected. The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it. OSM would never and could never make any kind of warranty about the protection of user's contributions. But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection that we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving. However it fails to do this. Produced Works can be released under any license the publisher chooses. If ODbL was really trying to fix CC-BY-SA for data (and for us) then it would make much more sense for Produced Works to only be publishable under a CC-BY-SA license. It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it works for data. Why is that? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, 80n wrote: We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected. The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it. If we have really never said nor implied that our contributors' data was protected, then I'd say it is morally ok to simply relicense the whole thing ODbL and be done with it. I do however believe that this would lead to an outcry because contributors believed otherwise. Who, if not we, has created that belief? But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection that we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving. However it fails to do this. Depends on how you look at it, and this has been discussed endlessly. OSM is a project about data, and ODbL seems very well suited to protect that data(base), in an even stronger fashion than CC-BY-SA ever did (what with having to release intermediate databases which could have been kept proprietary under CC-BY-SA). At the same time it recognizes that trying to extend protection to non-data(base) things just reduces OSM's usefulness, and thus allows Produced Works to be published under any[*] license. Remember that the stated goal of OSM is to create a free world map, not to make sure some printed atlas or work of art somewhere is under a free license. It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it works for data. Why is that? ODbL is a new license, it is not a patch against CC-BY-SA. I see nothing wrong with that; it is a product of a long and arduous community process in which people with very different views about licensing and what's good and what's bad for the project have agreed on a workable middle ground that protects what is essential to the project and releases what is non-essential. As you know, those who invented CC-BY-SA tried to somehow adapt it for use with data, and came to the conclusion that they'd rather recommend all data be CC0. Which I still think is a good idea but I accept that I can't always have things my way if I want to be part of a community. Bye Frederik [*] any has always been my reading, however there are others who claim that ODbL does in fact not allow you to publish under any license, but it must be some kind of attribution license. Here's Richard Fairhurst's take on this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-June/006292.html -- 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. This is true but I am pretty convinced that (1) would lead to people saying: Ah, OpenStreetMap, those guys that re-licence their stuff at will. - We would be thrown in with people like CDDB. Not a great analogy as CDDB isn't really open, right? I think that there are people who are against ODbL but will continue contributing if they see that this is what most project members want. I think that this number will be much smaller if OSM is seen to ignore their contributors' will. But this is only my impression; maybe one should start a poll asking: Would you find it morally acceptable to simply change the license without giving a damn for what contributors say? I think a poll would be good. Perhaps with a different wording though:) Here's another possible scenario: even if OSMF is not willing to do forced relicensing, individual contributors may choose to effectively do so. Say OSMF does remove the data from the main database (what? how? this is poorly defined for all but trivial cases), but a contributor is convinced (by OSMF, no less:)) that CC BY-SA is the same as PD for data, and copy-pastes removed data back into the main database. Not so easy in case of complex relations etc, but doable. I wonder if that would be a widespread scenario. Michael. 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. If nothing else, that'd give an idea of how people feel about licensing vs data itself. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, 80n wrote: We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected. The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it. If we have really never said nor implied that our contributors' data was protected, then I'd say it is morally ok to simply relicense the whole thing ODbL and be done with it. I do however believe that this would lead to an outcry because contributors believed otherwise. Who, if not we, has created that belief? But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection that we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving. However it fails to do this. Depends on how you look at it, and this has been discussed endlessly. OSM is a project about data, and ODbL seems very well suited to protect that data(base), in an even stronger fashion than CC-BY-SA ever did (what with having to release intermediate databases which could have been kept proprietary under CC-BY-SA). At the same time it recognizes that trying to extend protection to non-data(base) things just reduces OSM's usefulness, and thus allows Produced Works to be published under any[*] license. Remember that the stated goal of OSM is to create a free world map, not to make sure some printed atlas or work of art somewhere is under a free license. It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it works for data. Why is that? ODbL is a new license, it is not a patch against CC-BY-SA. I see nothing wrong with that; it is a product of a long and arduous community process in which people with very different views about licensing and what's good and what's bad for the project have agreed on a workable middle ground that protects what is essential to the project and releases what is non-essential. As you know, those who invented CC-BY-SA tried to somehow adapt it for use with data, and came to the conclusion that they'd rather recommend all data be CC0. Which I still think is a good idea but I accept that I can't always have things my way if I want to be part of a community. Bye Frederik [*] any has always been my reading, however there are others who claim that ODbL does in fact not allow you to publish under any license, but it must be some kind of attribution license. Here's Richard Fairhurst's take on this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-June/006292.html -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) Problem is, the principled objectors could also decline to sue OSMF and instead threaten to sue users of OSM data that contains their contributions. *We* believe such threats to be empty, but consider our users - one of the reasons for ODbL is to achieve a legal certainty about using our data. Would all this not lead to people *again* shying away from OSM for fear of some poisoned bits of data? 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Forwarded from talk because it might miss someone not on both lists -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive? Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010, 01:13:36 From: Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de To: t...@openstreetmap.org I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk. [...] What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? Just some bullet points at first, explanation follows: - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let develop such a tool. - Please present a sound and complete technical solution to disentangle the data between the relicensed and the not relicensed. - Be prepared on a successive per-region move to the license. The communities in different parts of the world are at different pace. I don't think that the mappers in general are annoyed about that somebody works on legal issues. But don't forget that one of the key features of the project is the message: Care for the data and the applications - we promise you won't be affected by legal trouble. Thus, I would consider the license as a technical detail, like the change from API v0.5 to API v0.6. Now, if the API change would have damaged an unknown amount of data at unknown places, if would have been never done. This is because those responsible for the API change were aware that the new API is a mean, not and end. Legal things are less logical than technical things, thus everybody would accept more collateral damage. But still, I would expect good faith from the LWG: it is technical feasible to preview the impact of the license change on the data with an appropriate tool. Some suggestions - Have another read-only mirror that contains only the already relicensed data. This would allow to render a map with the ODbL-avaiable. Thus, the data loss or not-loss gets easily visible. We only need another server and a list of all user-ids that have so far relicensed, and about 4 weeks to make everything working. - Don't use an extra server, but make the relicensing data available via the main API. This needs much more brainpower, would save a server and prevents the user-id list from being published. I would estimate this takes at least 8 weeks to develop. I would volunteer to do option 1 if I get time until the end of the year. Maybe somebody else could offer this faster. Then, the algorithm unbroken chain of history of ODbL users is close to nonsense. An easy exploit would be a bot, possible camouflaged by different user accounts, that systematically deletes and re-inserts every object. Then, all data would have unbroken chain of history but won't have in general. Note that massive delete and re-create takes place from time to time, e.g. when imports and synced with pre-existing data. I claim more time to first get a more elaborate algorithm for the data move decision, so please remove the fixed timings from the plan. And, of course, things like translating messages into foreign languages and back, explaining the licensing issues at all to mappers in foreign systems of legislation and so on takes time. Indeed much more time than to implement a license within the special legal system it was designed for. I don't find the issues addressed in the implementation plan at all. Cheers, Roland ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk - ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
