Re: [Talk-transit] How to map named bus stop platform/positions
On 31/08/10 19:17, Magnus Bäck wrote: In the Skånetrafiken public transport network in southmost Sweden, bus stops are identified not only by name but also by a capital letter that identifies this particular platform (or stop position, if you will). In most cases you have an A platform for one direction and a B platform across the street for buses heading the other direction. Hi, It sounds exactly the same in my region (Redcar Cleveland, United Kingdom), except numbers are often used instead of letters. Stops at the same location often share a common name, eg. 'Market Place' but with a 'Stand 1' and 'Stand 2' on opposite sides of the road, for travelling in different directions. Where there are many stops at one location along a stretch of road, stops are numbered or sometimes lettered, and you must wait at the correct stop for your bus service. My local authority has entered these 'stand identifiers' in the UK-wide database of stops (NaPTAN) as 'Indicators' and during bulk imports to OSM, data from this field is imported as 'local_ref=*'. I'm not sure if that's the best attribute to use. But I certainly don't like the idea of textualising details like 'Stand 1' or 'West-bound' within the 'name=*' tag, because I feel that sort of data should be stored 'atomically', as a separate attribute, to make it simpler to query and process. A renderer or application is then free to textualise the data later in a way that seems appropriate. I'd expect a renderer to display stand identifiers at their exact location, and the area around them labelled with their common name. When zoomed out, it would only show the name and perhaps a single dot, looking more like a schematic route diagram. Is there a recommended attribute to use for stand identifiers, or are stop area relations being used to achieve this instead? ps., on a more general note... I hope that OSM, and free software and services built on free data, aimed at public transport operators and authorities, can someday influence and standardised the way things are done in the real world. I think a lot of aspects of the design and the vocubulary regarding stops, routes and even pricing/ticketing is often borrowed from whatever software being used and the features it has. Giving the operators good, open-source and standards-based programs and services to work with, may nudge them towards a simpler design avoiding many of the incompatibility issues being brought up on Talk-Transit. That's something I hope for, anyway. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [talk-ph] charitable institutions?
maybe these private orgs / foundations / charities can be temporarily classified all under NGO classification (or a more general term). not all foundations / NGO's are charitable. Maybe, charity should just be a sub-category of foundation or NGO(?) Charitable institutions are most likely a foundation or non-profit org, but not necessarily an NGO (like PCSO). PAGCOR also gives a lot to charity :-) On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:16 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Probably amenity=charity? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/charity But there are no concensus in the succeeding discussions: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/charity I suggest you add them for now and a building=yes tag. i.e. amenity=charity name=Kamanggagawa Foundation building=yes On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:05 PM, tutubi tut...@backpackingphilippines.com wrote: how do you tag charitable institutions like orphanages and transient homes? I know a few but have yet to add them e.g. Kamanggagawa Foundation on EDSA at the entrance gate of Philam Homes, QC -- --- I explore, therefore I blog. http://www.backpackingphilippines.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] better ways to coordinate coastline mapping?
Hmmm... I guess we can declare this coastline correction task complete? There are still red spots in the webmap but I think these are all residual errors and I'm guessing there are no more SRTM-based coastlines remaining. I think all are now based on Landsat or PGS (which has small sawtooth coasts of its own). Good job guys! :-D On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:25 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: here's how to use the sawtooth webpage and josm http://vimeo.com/13546210 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Nice! The Philippines looks a whole lot less bloody since I first put up the webmap. Good work! http://forge.codedgraphic.com/osm/sawtooth_coastlines/ On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:15 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: FYI, since we started monitoring the sawtooths, we nuked around 25% of all jagged coasties Less a thousand sawtooth segments to go. Keep it up guys. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to maning's diary entry http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/maning/diary/11240 we're making good progress on fixing those sawtooth coastlines. We are actually getting help from foreigners (many are Germans) in cleaning up our coasts. :-) On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:02 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: The top ten islands is almost complete (not in the mandelbrotian sense). I added a new list of coastline bounty in the wiki (11-30 largest islands) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Coastline_Corrections#Priorities Please edit the status as you start working on each island. Note that some have a 99% status already, but, it is good for other eyeballs to have a look and comment on the actual %age and status. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] Vigan
hi all! i'm doing a trip pre-planning to Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur with a highly-probable side-trip to Vigan and noticed OSM needs some sort of a Vigan mapping party. the tourist place needs lots of mapping works to do; I expected the opposite though. I remember the calesa route merely circled the city's main streets but it's not yet there on the map. -- --- I explore, therefore I blog. http://www.backpackingphilippines.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer. Yes, the True Answer as John and I know. Let's be true and tlk of honestness. John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. Jane Smith ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the discussion over the LINZ import. Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL relicensing. That is the argument of the Rich. That they contribut money when we the people contribut our flesh and bones to the map! Sureley someone who contribtues more than another is doing from their goodwill and all contributions are equal in reality? We need to rise up and take the reins of Power. As 80n has foretold. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
You would have had more luck sticking to one alias (Jane Smith), now you're just making it obvious as to your goals. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some are now stooping to questionable tactics, but it just re-enforces the fact that I no longer have any faith in those that are pushing for license changes are doing so for the good of the project. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be brought down? Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for longer before others wise up as to your intents... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:55 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: You would have had more luck sticking to one alias (Jane Smith), now you're just making it obvious as to your goals. John you are correct. The more we use our aliases the better. But no I am not 80n or 80 m. The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John, the longer we can disrupt things! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be brought down? Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for longer before others wise up as to your intents... John! You are right! How do I disrupt the community covertly like you and Anthony and Liz and 80n? I am trying to learn! Am I being too Open? Teach me! I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
On 1 September 2010 17:00, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John Oh goody a juicy secret... do tell, or should be have a sleep over and play truth or dare? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! Did you have a good flight from Germany? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:09 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 17:00, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John Oh goody a juicy secret... do tell, or should be have a sleep over and play truth or dare? But John you said you'd never juicy ask me that! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later! Did you have a good flight from Germany? Yar I ist eating mine fritter John. can you explainen the distruptnik of the community again? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be content with the license... Thank you both for being so concerned about my personal license preference. Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I think. - As for the contributor terms, some parts of them are necessary and some are not necessary but prudent, among them the much-discussed clause 3; only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. You seem to be sending your emails from OppositeLand, JohnSmith. The Contributor Terms, and specifically the relicensing term in term three are prudent because we know that it is impossible to know what license will be best for OSM in 6, 10 or 50 years. That you assert that CC-By-SA is right for OSM now and will be the right license for OSM forevermore makes you the one claiming perfect foresight. That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. As others have pointed out, OSM-F expects contributors to trust it without putting any trust in the contributors... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or unreachable by then, well, tough luck. - The après moi le déluge stance if you will. In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is best for the project in 10 years? I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years. Neither do I. But in exchange for every puny node you add today you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future. I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project) would be stupid, to say the least. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 18:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM As I've stated in the past, which you conveniently keep ignoring, over looking or misunderstanding... You are putting end users of the data ahead of contributors, imho that is selfish, you think end users are more important that the contributors, is your view being influenced because your company is such an end user? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time. The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are telling all the current contributors that you know best, because you are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future without even asking people what they want. You seem to be sending your emails from OppositeLand, JohnSmith. The Contributor Terms, and specifically the relicensing term in term three are prudent because we know that it is impossible to know what license will be best for OSM in 6, 10 or 50 years. I think the general view is that the project is currently licensed under CC-BY-SA but that if you don't like it then you are free to fork. Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect. It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for a broken license, eh? The great thing about the current license is that there's no coercion. If you don't like it or the licensed doesn't work for your use case then you can just go ahead and start your own fork. That's what those who are in favour of ODbL should have done two years ago. Instead we now have this ugly mess which is set to string out for a very long time with continual disruption and damage to the project. That you assert that CC-By-SA is right for OSM now and will be the right license for OSM forevermore makes you the one claiming perfect foresight. That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. We have a responsibility to do the right thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the decision on future licenses to future OSM active contributors, by 2/3 majority vote. As others have pointed out, OSM-F expects contributors to trust it without putting any trust in the contributors... Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith? The OSMF trusts OpenStreetMap contributors. The OSMF _are_ OpenStreetMap contributors. The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM contributors JohnSmith? I think that you have demonstrated that you do not trust current OSM contributors. You treat them with what appears to be contempt. You won't even provide a bare minimum of context in your changeset comments for other OSM contributors. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, 80n wrote: Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect. But they are saying that it is unsuitable. It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for a broken license, eh? Rely on people's good intentions is not a general solution. The great thing about the current license is that there's no coercion. There's no coercion in the new licence or in the changeover. You are free to decline and to continue to pretend that BY-SA is a suitable licence for data. If you don't like it or the licensed doesn't work for your use case then you can just go ahead and start your own fork. That's what those who are in favour of ODbL should have done two years ago. You can't fork BY-SA to ODbL + DbCL, so this wouldn't be possible. If only the CT's had allowed it... Instead we now have this ugly mess which is set to string out for a very long time with continual disruption and damage to the project. Some people think it's being strung out, others think it's being rushed. Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. We have a responsibility to do the right Frederik's argument is entirely correct. We should empower them to do the right thing. thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. And we are doing the right thing now. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 18:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith? Can't figure out any better insults? The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM At least be honest about it, the CTs as they read now, basically state OSM is likely to become PD in future, I don't prescribe to the moral, and I would never have signed up to OSM if it had been anything less at the time. do not trust current OSM contributors. You treat them with what appears to be contempt. You won't even provide a bare minimum of Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. context in your changeset comments for other OSM contributors. Wow, that's the best you can do? How about mentioning the 10's of 1000's of change sets attributed to me to help improve the map, how about the 100s if not 1000s of dollars I've spent on fuel + GPS equipment trying to improve the map, how about the time and effort I spent submitting patches to improve JOSM, how about the time and effort I spent making apps for phones to help improve the map... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want is quite fallacious. Really? What will future generations want, 80n? I predict that future generations will want Flying cars sure, but we were promised those decades ago. :) On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data and OSM contributors are enthusiastic about it. You know perfectly well that OS opened their data in part because OSM changed the very ground on which OS stands. You know that perfectly well because you were and are part of making that change. The world will continue to change as will the world of Open Geo Data. OSM will continue to be part of making that change. And future OSM contributors will want to adapt to those very changes that they are making as well. We have a responsibility to do the right thing now and not leave a mess someone else to sort out later. Forks and relicensing will always be expensive for open communities. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and make it slightly less expensive for future OSM contributors to adapt to the changing legal environment around them by using a relicensing provision in term three. To fail to do so now is to leave a mess for future OSM contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 18:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data And how compatible will the CTs be with OS data exactly? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and compromise. Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed or not. But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. OpenStreetMap - It's Fun. It's Free. You can Help. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way of ensuring this than BY-SA The devil you know is better than the devil you don't At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible the ODBL is a really bad deal and neither should be accepted as being honest, moral or for the benefit of the project. That's a serious allegation and one not borne out by the facts. If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention very much. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and compromise. Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed or not. But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Cheers, Andy [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Firefishy#User:JohnSmith [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnSmitholdid=512994 [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/052736.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL Is this like all the laywers that think the ODBL is great too? about 12,500 contributors make up about 99% of the data, how many of those agree with your point of view, or is this a case of the view of a few hundred being extrapolated to the entire project? But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. Because dirty tricks have been employed all along, from abusing statistics to trying to discredit people that disagree. Although today they've gone off the charts... You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import You tried to discredit me by showing things in a very one sided manner, by making it seem as if the contributions I made weren't useful because I didn't bother to supply changeset comments, and you are still trying to belittle my contributions when we both know I'm in the top 100 contributors... data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. It's a tad difficult to defend ones self against such vague claims, maybe I should make the same claims of you without pointing out exactly what you did, can you prove you didn't? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:12:21 -0400, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I don't recall a poll or a survey where I've been asked if I want a license change and which license I want. I do know that people can currently accept the new ODbL license, but they are not asked to decline it if they want that, so you will not get the negative vote from that. I must agree with John's feel here: I've not been asked if I want it, I'm only asked to accept it or not. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Sock puppetry is not welcome here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29 A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. The rash of posts by Jane Smith and 80 m are examples sockpuppetry at its worst. If you care for this kind of thing, take it elsewhere. It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and most of all, it's not something we accept here. For the avoidance of doubt, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and pseudonyms. And if you disagree with the use of pseudonyms within our community, then take the matter up directly, rather than with such stupid mailing list posts as we've seen over the last few days. Let me remind you that legal-talk, like our other mailing lists, is here for constructive, positive discussion (and positive, constructive disagreement too), not for sending anonymous abusive emails to and/or regarding other people in the community. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] STOP Re: 80m Manifesto
On 1 September 2010 09:53, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote: PLEASE Indeed. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might distract people changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly Which minor edit(s) were mine exactly? never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Is that worst dirt you guys could dig up on me? No affairs with hookers, no affiliations with seedy underworld figures, no bribes to cops even, I'll have to remember to try harder in future... Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's really unbecoming. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Sock puppetry is not welcome here
On 1 September 2010 10:36, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29 A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. The rash of posts by Jane Smith and 80 m are examples sockpuppetry at its worst. If you care for this kind of thing, take it elsewhere. It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and most of all, it's not something we accept here. For the avoidance of doubt, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and pseudonyms. And if you disagree with the use of pseudonyms within our community, then take the matter up directly, rather than with such stupid mailing list posts as we've seen over the last few days. Let me remind you that legal-talk, like our other mailing lists, is here for constructive, positive discussion (and positive, constructive disagreement too), not for sending anonymous abusive emails to and/or regarding other people in the community. Comment greatly appreciated. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:38, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's really unbecoming. I'm mortified about the license change debate, I'm mortified that any grievances with the license change debate go un-addressed, I'm mortified that people feel that have to resort to muck racking to try and win a debate. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:22:12PM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Albertas Agejevas a...@pov.lt wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings, altitude data. Brushing away integration with other databases makes the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible. they can use the osm data. come one. They just have to make a package called osm-data and distribute it separately. that is like saying that the gcc makes your programs gpl. think again. But FlightGear, for instance, currently uses cooked scenery files, distributing OSM data separately is not an option. So it is not included at all. (I am not associated with FlightGear). Albertas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 19:59, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: My comments have nothing to do with the debate or any issues you Then perhaps you should have used another thread with a more appropriate subject line to avoid confusion? My comments are intended to address your disruptive behaviour on the wiki, in the database, and elsewhere. But you seem to relish the disruption and are continually Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions. But instead of apologising, or even acknowledging that you seemingly can't behave cooperatively within the OSM community, you carry on with your destructive behaviour. I find that quite unfortunate. So in other words you can't out right fault me as badly as you were hoping, and this is the best you could come up with ? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote: The OSMF are OpenStreetMap contributors. However OpenStreetMap contributors != OSMF because OSMF is a subset of contributors (although being a contributor is not a prerequisite, so this may not be completely true). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony schrieb: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later clause). Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. So you say the GNU project should not work? Or the OpenOffice.org project? CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an and later clause. Where later, i.e. 3.0 explicitely does not apply to databases like OSM. So only one more reason for us to switch elsewhere. But we know that already. And ODbL is not in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL is in the same spirit as GFDL. That's your opinion, and anyone with legal knowledge in here seems to dispute both of those statements. But of course, you can't use a documentation license for creative works, a code license for documentation or a creative license for a mostly factual database - at least not reasonably. And that's what all our relicensing is about in the end. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Francis Davey schrieb: Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to certain exceptions. While that may be true, anyone not trusting the organization that operates all of the software and hardware of the project (the OSMF in our case) should not have contributed any data to the project as a whole in the first place. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I think When did you come to that conclusion, and why? Weren't you opposed to the license at first? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of course you can change your mind about the license at a later time but you'll have to go through the same procedure again; effectively I and everyone else demand a veto on that, and if we should be dead, uninterested, or unreachable by then, well, tough luck. - The après moi le déluge stance if you will. In my eyes, *that* is a stance of astounding arrogance but it seems that we have different perceptions. - What exactly is, in your eyes, humble about dictating to future members of OSM exactly what they can do with the project? Remember we're talking about future members - those who do all the work and keep the project alive. Remember also that they are likely to outnumber us, vastly. Why again would it be our moral right to tell them what to do, and why should we have reason to believe that we know what is best for the project in 10 years? I think you're right that it's a matter of different perceptions. What you're describing is the way copyright law works. If you feel that copyright is a moral right, then of course you'll have no problem with copyright holders being able to dictate what happens to their works, even 10 years in the future. The fact that contributors are giving any license at all is something to be grateful for. I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years. Neither do I. Well sure it's selfish. Would you prefer us to be self-destructive? Who are we supposed to be doing this for if not for ourselves? The fact that you don't even know if you'll be in OSM in 10 years is a big part of the point. You yourself said that most people wouldn't want 2/3rds of the members of a fork relicensing OSM. If you're no longer an active member of OSM, what does it matter if it's 2/3rds of a fork or 2/3rds of OSM itself? If 10 years from now OSM is something that I don't want to support, I *want* them to be limited in what they can do with my contributions. But in exchange for every puny node you add today you want the future OSM to do your bidding, to stick to a narrow set of conditions of which you have not the faintest idea whether they will allow the project to flourish or whether they'll strangle it in the future. This is outright dishonest. The future OSM is under no obligation to do anyone's bidding. They simply need to follow the license *if* they want to continue to use my contributions. Now, I'm not going to defend the ODbL. I think it's a bad license, which imposes far too onerous conditions on reuse. On the other hand, most people seem to disagree with this. If you think the conditions of the ODbL are acceptable, then what's so bad about making OSMF eat its own dog food? I think that endangering the future of the project just to be able to keep a little data on board (and along with it some people who seem to care far more about themselves and the soapbox they stand on than about the project) would be stupid, to say the least. And I think it's stupid to give up your rights today just because someone claims (without argument) that not giving up those rights might possibly endanger some project in the future (a project which, as you say, you don't even know if you're going to be a part of). If OSMF worries that the current version of ODbL might be fundamentally flawed to the point where the project would be strangled 10 years from now, then they should 1) talk to the ODC about that concern, and get a commitment from them that they will fix such flaws in a future license version; and 2) add or any later version to the contributor terms (yes, that's in the license, but adding it to the CT would cover the possibility that there's a flaw in the or later version part of the ODbL). But personally, I think that's silly. The project is so much more than just the data. You've talked yourself about how easy it is to replace the data of people who don't agree to the switch. Now imagine how much easier it'll be with the technology we have 10 years from now. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
John, there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find something inappropriate. For example this: John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: The devil is in the details. CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print... is just unsuitable for a debate (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100% rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time. As for debate, your point has been made and understood: * Your No. 1 priority for OSM is to keep the data you and some of your fellow Australians have mapped and imported. * In your particular case, while most of that data is compatible, or could be made compatible, with ODbL, things are more difficult with potential future license changes (CT clause 3) Until here, you are probably not alone and your cause is understandable. While others in the same situation might take a more progressive stance and try to make things work, your conclusion has been: * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good enough in Australia). Even this is, while probably not the best option for the project overall, something you're not alone with. You've said it, your point has been made, no need to repeat it 20 times a week. But here things start to go wrong. You're screaming, you're kicking, you're accusing everyone of sinister motives, secret plans, evilness of all kind. You're crying foul, you're writing acid comments and getting personal on almost any mailing list you have access to. You're the no. 1 poster on legal-talk by a large margin, and your messages haven't had anything new in them for the last four weeks. For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing. My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it. So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be doing things wrong. I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition. You're trying to make a win or lose situation out of something that wasn't one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to win. This is a trait commonly found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful. In addition, but this has already been said by others, your behaviour in our online community is bullish and obnoxious, and if made aware of your mistakes you're just trying to make this into a new battle in which to stand ground before your friends rather than admitting it and making amends. JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your arrogance and general disruptive behaviour. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your endless scorn, I now have to read 80 m and Jane Smith as well, and I think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see some of it flung back. *Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates your claim of dirty tricks on the part of the people you don't agree with. I have no problem with debating the issues, Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it. Unike you, I have debated all aspects of re-licensing with various people for the last three years, and I'm willing to continue doing so, provided it occurs in a civilised manner - one of which, sadly, you do not seem to be capable. For you, this is not a debate but an ego contest. I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You, JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your audience. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps however (possibly this only means maps as images though) It is my understanding that they are talking about maps as images but IANAL. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps however (possibly this only means maps as images though) It is my understanding that they are talking about maps as images but IANAL. I'm not even sure what maps as images means. If a map is described in XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a map as an image? Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ef/Aeroway-helipad.png and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/cd/Bierkrug32x32.png) were omitted or placed in a different file. Just the lines (dashed/dotted/etc), the filled areas (colors or patterns), and the text were included. Is OSM a project to make maps, or a project to collect factual data about the world? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote: The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks. Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any more. So all we have left on the list is you guys jerking off. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Well we try to answer questions as quickly as possible. Some answers depend on further meetings, others depend on replies from busy professionals. Some answers get lost in the mundane reality of day to day life. Here are a couple of answers for questions that were asked a few weeks back. Not your questions perhaps, but answers to community questions nonetheless. DRAFT http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_FAQ DRAFT As it says, this is a draft, so expect more answers over time. You ask again how much data loss is acceptable? And this has been answered before as, That depends on the local and global context of the particular data. I don't think that this question is unanswered so much as it is unanswerable. Of course every contributor will have their own opinion on how much, and on a particular piece of the planet that may hold more interest for them personally. That's not an answer either, but it does point out the Sisyphean scale of finding One True Answer to your repeated question. Your question regarding legal council suggests that the author of ODbL is the only lawyer that OSMF board have relied upon for advice regarding ODbL and the license change process. This is incorrect. So what you see as the biggest conflict of interest in the project does not exist. As a brief history of OSMF and lawyers, OSMF have had two different firms agree to provide legal advice for OSMF. The second still serve OSMF after taking over when the first firm was unable to respond in a timely matter. I thank both firms for their interest in OpenStreetmap and their support of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. The OpenStreetMap community as a whole, not just the OSMF membership, were invited to contribute to the drafts, release candidates and final version of the ODbL. The Contributor Terms were written by OSMF council at another law firm, not by the ODbL author. Other lawyers in several jurisdictions, from additional firms, have offered opinions at various times on various matters. You ask when the tools will be ready to analyse the impact of licensing questions. Largely the answer is the same as for questions about any software tool in any open project; they'll be ready when they are ready. As an alternative answer they will be ready when you write them. But flip answers are not really my style, so forgive my brief non-answer. During the LWG meeting this week, one participant discussed the tool they were creating. So some work on these visualization tools is proceeding. Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling should be considered for reversion if the owner chooses not to accept ODbL/CT, you should participate in that discussion. Is a simple import of data published elsewhere a contribution that earns the possibility of reversion or is it purely mechanical? On the other hand, we're also answering questions and revising text for additional clarity, and checking revisions with lawyers. So things will keep taking time. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 22:41, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I'm not even sure what maps as images means. If a map is described in XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a map as an image? Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ef/Aeroway-helipad.png and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/cd/Bierkrug32x32.png) were omitted or placed in a different file. Just the lines (dashed/dotted/etc), the filled areas (colors or patterns), and the text were included. Is OSM a project to make maps, or a project to collect factual data about the world? maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Whether some or all of the OSM is a map is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. The point being that image is not a UK copyright category, the main category is artistic work of which a graphic work is a subcategory one member of which is a map. Section 10 of the (Australian) Copyright Act 1968 does the same job (where the categories are artistic work/drawing which includes map). The Australians inherit their copyright law from the same source as we do in the UK and there is still considerable cross-fertilisation of ideas (the High Court of Australia being particularly respected here). I could go on but it would bore. I just wanted to make the point that images isn't a category much used in copyright definitions, unless referring to photographs/films and so on where the image is a recording of light - which a map isn't except indirectly. There's a conflict of authority in the UK over whether a work can belong to several categories at once. I don't mean whether a work can have elements that could be more than one class of work (like pictures in a book) but where the same creative content is both. For example a circuit diagram has been held to be a literary work (because it is written in the language of an electrical engineer) but also an artistic work at the same time. So, maybe something can be a map, a copyrightable database and a (sui generis right) database at the same time. Who knows. Sorry, its late and I am meandering a bit. The short point is: none of this is even slightly unproblematic. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/01/2010 10:17 PM, Liz wrote: 1. From where does OSMF get the mandate to choose the licence? OSMF mandate is to own and run the servers . I got that from the OSMF website. The OSMF's Memorandum of Association, which is the legal expression of the Foundation's purpose, states: 3. The objects for which the Company is established are: 3.1 OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. 4. In support of the objects, but not otherwise, the Company shall have power to do all things incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects or any of them. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Memorandum_and_Articles_of_Association 2. Why is a vote among ~300 people binding on a community of ~300,000 contributors, of whom ~12,500 are active mappers. If anyone believes they have a legally binding obligation to relicence their data they are mistaken. 3. Why does the OSMF use the advice of a lawyer who was party to writing the ODbL? I see there the biggest conflict of interest in the project. Good legal advice is independent, and the price should not involved in determinign whether it is good or bad. In my experience access to the author of a licence is a good thing. 4. How much data loss is acceptable to the pro-ODbL lobby? There is no pro-ODbL lobby. There are individuals and presumably organizations who support relicencing (however enthusiastically or reluctantly, and for whatever reason), but that support is not to my knowledge organized in any way or based on any hidden agenda. 5. When will the tools be available to see how much data worldwide will be removed? - on a world map, not a diagram. A more constructive project would be a visualisation of how long it would take to relicence or recreate the data, and details on how to do so. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 2 September 2010 05:14, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find something inappropriate. I've made several comments that you do like wise, you keep claiming this change is needed to make OSM more free, but that's dishonest because it will only make *END USERS* more free, but you continue you leave those words from your statement. is just unsuitable for a debate (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100% rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time. Oh that's even funnier when you later claim I take things out of context, it seems everything you acuse me of you end up just as guilty as committing the same crime. As for debate, your point has been made and understood: So why do you continually take me out of context and claim I'm against the license if you have understood my point? * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good enough in Australia). See there you go again... For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing. I can't seem to find your links... So it's a mystery to me as well... Also you continuously seem to avoid Anthony's question about why you changed your stance on the ODBL... My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean the current solution is a good one, in fact I doubt I'd get a valid answer to that either since you and others have invested so much time and effort you wouldn't admit your own mistakes. So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be doing things wrong. For someone that claims to want to debate license issues you turned this into a personal attack pretty quickly. I don't want to blame anyone, I just don't like the current solution and you seem unwilling to compromise at all. I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition. You're trying to make a win or lose situation out of something that wasn't one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to win. This is a trait commonly found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful. I see Dr Frederik, and what is your hourly psychotherapy rate exactly? You seem to need some of your own medicine at this point in time. JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your arrogance and general disruptive behaviour. You have a hide, you claim I'm the arrogant one, when you have very very loudly proclaimed to know what's best for the project, without even asking most current contributors. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your endless scorn, I now have to read 80 m and Jane Smith as well, and I think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see some of it flung back. So 2 wrongs make a right now? But of course you don't like it when you get asked inconvenient questions and instead of addressing those you go into a personal rant. Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it. You took things I said in your email out of context several times, but that seems to be something you do often already. I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You, JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your audience. So what about Anthony's question(s)? You don't seem to want to debate anything, you have a point of view and that's the only one that matters. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works are included as examples of copyrightable works, and maps are included under pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Whether some or all of the OSM is a map is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that a GIS database [is] essentially a computerized map and may be entitled to protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well (see Open Records Law, GIS, and Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). I just wanted to make the point that images isn't a category much used in copyright definitions Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'd certainly argue that maps, as used in that license, include GIS databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's comment that a GIS database is essentially a computerized map as evidence. Ultimately, if it became a matter of dispute, and judge and/or jury would decide, and we can only make educated guesses about whether or not they'd agree. On the other hand, it might not matter, as I'd also argue that the OSM database is a copyrightable compilation. As to that, Ms. Peterson Dando says in the context of copyright law, GIS databases are compilations which may be copyrighted. Finally, I want to be fair and point out that while (or even if) the OSM database is copyrightable, that doesn't mean the copyright on it extends very far. Again quoting Lori Peterson Dando, Even though a GIS database may be copyrightable as a compilation or a map, the protection afforded by copyright may be thin in light of the Feist and Mason decisions. To give a specific example, I'd say a routing database created from OSM data, suitable for running a shortest path algorithm and providing driving directions, would be completely public domain and non-copyrightable, in the US and in many other jurisdictions. And that, I'd say, is a flaw in CC-BY-SA. Because it means someone in a sui generis database rights jurisdiction could take OSM, make a routing database out of it, improve that routing database, and then sue people under database rights law for using those improvements. At least, under CC-BY-SA 3.0, I think they could. Yes, the ODbL fixes that. Unfortunately it fixes too many other things, that weren't broken in the first place. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 2 September 2010 03:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective). Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works are included as examples of copyrightable works, and maps are included under pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Whether some or all of the OSM is a map is another question - which I guess is the one you are asking. Well, not really. First of all, I'd say Mapnik tiles are clearly part of OSM, and I don't think there's any dispute that Mapnik tiles are maps. But furthermore, when it comes to the OSM database itself, I agree with Assistant County Attorney Lori Peterson Dando that a GIS database [is] essentially a computerized map and may be entitled to protection under copyright law, not only as a compilation, but as a 'pictorial' or 'graphic' work as well (see Open Records Law, GIS, and Copyright Protection: Life after Feist, https://www.urisa.org/files/Dandovol4no1-4.pdf). I just wanted to make the point that images isn't a category much used in copyright definitions Well, in this case we were talking about the definition as used in CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'd certainly argue that maps, as used in that license, include GIS databases like the OSM database, and I'd use Ms. Peterson Dando's comment that a GIS database is essentially a computerized map as evidence. I'd argue that in a big part this may be a result of the changed meaning of the word map and not the intent of that law. Some decades ago it was very difficult to create a map that didn't include a great deal of interpretation of facts and creativity, or at least expertise, but today it's possible to extract just the factual part and store in a database with just a little bit of interpretation which can be accounted to errors or artifacts of digitisation, all this without knowing more than using a gps. I wonder how much you can abuse this to get protection of copyright, for example by building something of which your database is a map and then claiming copyright. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling should be considered for reversion if the owner chooses not to accept ODbL/CT, you should participate in that discussion. Who's going to make the decision? After the decision is made, will there be a vote? Will it be run past the OSMF lawyers, and if so, when? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote: If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it. +1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Correlated photos on GPS traces - fine adjusted on OSM maps under CC-0?
Hi, One of my sources(source=*) that I use for streets are geotagged photos, which I link to directly at the website where they are hosted. Sometimes when I see that the photo geoposition isn't the way I want it(knowing that the street sign in my city is on the corner of a building usually), I adjust it using the CC-BY-SA-2.0 maps of OSM. Did I maybe already answer my question? (since the rendered osm map images are CC-BY-SA-2.0 I can't use them to correct the positions of my photos and release them under a public domain CC-0 license, or any other license whatsoever?) CC-0 is a license or statement where you waive all your rights to the work, to the extent allowable by law. Regards, Niklas -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be content with the license... But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be brought down? That is why we should burn his books. Frederik is a puppet. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can OSM sources be public domain CC-0(zero)?
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Aun Yngve Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.orgwrote: I believe if you are the owner of the data, But what is an owner? Ownership is the lash of the bourgoise. What you own is owned by us all. Properety is theft. Therefore those who steel the map from us the mappers need to be brought to heel and allow us, the real mappers, to own the data and stop this 'new license'. you can put any license you care on it and liberate it for use with OSM regardless of chosen license. As long as you state in some way that the data is free for use within OSM or something. brgds Aun Johnsen On 31/08/2010, at 18:46, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote: Hello, When I map, sometimes I add sources to my contributions. It could be a bus route relation where I may add the GPS trace I took while riding the bus as the source for the route. Other times if I name a street I may use a geotagged/geolocated photo of the street sign as a source.(thus proving that the name is the same as the one shown on the street sign) In some cases where I want to fine-adjust the location of a geotagged photo using for example the rendered OSM Mapnik images, will part of my photo(or the photo in whole) become CC-BY-SA-2.0? (this question arised after I considered making all my geotagged -in EXIF- photos public domain CC-0-1.0-Universal) Another question about GPS traces: When I contribute to OpenStreetMap with my GPS traces which I upload, do they become available under any specific license or are they just uploaded? (if they are just uploaded then they are 'All Rights Reserved' apart from giving special permission to the OSM project to use them) Regards, Niklas -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
OSMDoc is great - it's a shame it's a year out of date. I needed a more modern breakdown of tag statistics so I decided to write a report myself - very quick and dirty (no where near as cool as OSMDoc), but functional to get a breakdown of tag usage. I figured someone else might like to read it too: http://www.gamesforlittletimmy.com/TagStats_100811.txt.gz (6.1MB decompressed, 881K download. The text file is Unix formatted, UTF-8) Basically the file is a breakdown of the most common tags. If you want to know what is the most common shop=, amenity=, highway = etc, this file probably has it. (I skip most of the private spaces like tiger: , ksj2:, naptan: etc). Now for the fun and useless facts part: * name=Hauptstraße is the most common name in the world. Used 14,353 times. (Main Street in German as I understand it) * There are 16,691,461 ways, nodes or relations marked with building=something. A year ago that number was 2,367,194 - roughly 7x growth. * addr:city =San Diego is the most common in the world - 367,229 times. * The top 4 countries by addr:country= are DK, US, DE, CZ. * amenity = swimming_pool is used 15,436 times. It doesn't even have a wiki page. leisure = swimming_pool (which does have a wiki page) is used 6,363 times. * amenity = place_of_worship is used 327,501 times - 21% growth over a year ago. amenity = parking is used 407,445 times - 81% growth over a year ago. * The most common street_address= is 9 EDITH BLVD NE - 243 of them in the world. (I suspect import issues) * There are 315 microbrewery's tagged. This tag didn't exist last year. * The 5 most common operator = are Metro Transit (15,052 times), Deutsche Telekom AG (11,226), Deutsche Post AG (9,807), Deutsche Post (7061), Royal Mail (5,534) * The most common brand is agip - 1907 instances. Ford is the most common car brand with 78 instances. * There are more misspellings of denomination=church_of_england (118) than there are denomination=shia (81) . denomination=catholic is the most common - 42143 (109% growth in a year), but denomination=baptist may be first next year 33,965 (1700% growth in a year). * shop=hairdresser jumped from 3,439 a year ago to 10729 this year (there is an icon in Mapnik and osmarender). shop=furniture grew from 1,675 a year ago to 4,570 this year (14th most common shop=, neither Mapnik nor osmarender have an icon for furniture shop's). * sport=soccer is the most common - 26% of all sport= tags. sport=scuba_diving has 2272 tags now - up 11,200% from last year (20). I'm sure you can find some interesting/useless/funny stats. John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
Noam, I am curious to know why you don't simply give OSM attribution and carry on using the maps? PY On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: Noam, Thank you for taking this as seriously as it needs, and solving the whole issue this fast. Regards, Julio Costa On 31 August 2010 17:35, Noam Bardin n...@waze.com wrote: Julio and Ignacio, thank you for bringing this to our attention. See our blog post at http://www.waze.com/blog/thanks-and-huge-apology-to-the-openstreetmap-community/ You guys were right and we took immediate action and deleted all potentially infringing data (see full story on the post). Thanks, Noam On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: Is it me or they just decided to erase the whole thing? (I am noticing the new tiles at the lower zoom levels) On 31 August 2010 16:51, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: No. On 31 August 2010 16:22, IgnacioZ zigna...@gmail.com wrote: Just asking... are they sharing the new tracks? On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:09 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: So what ? Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Julio Costa Zambelli Verzonden: dinsdag 31 augustus 2010 18:11 Aan: OSM-talk Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data Last night in the process of responding some comments to our GPS selling campaign (http://www.fayerwayer.com/2010/08/chile-compra-un-gps-barato-y-ayuda-a- openstreetmap/) (The goals being to buy a lot of Data Loggers and a server for the local community) I found out that Waze is using OSM for its map here in Chile and not giving any kind of attribution, is it the same anywhere else? Is it a known fact that they are using OSM Data and not giving any kind of credit to the community? Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Noam Bardin CEO Waze www.twitter.com/noamb11 US: 415-216-8719 Israel: +972-54-463-6406 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Mob (uk): +44(0) 7814 517 807 Mob (es): +34 651 597 610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
On Wednesday 01 September 2010 09:05:18 paul youlten wrote: I am curious to know why you don't simply give OSM attribution and carry on using the maps? If you read the blog post carefully, you'll find a hint: We are huge fans of OSM and hope to collaborate with OSM through the new license transition. Anyway, kudos to Noam and the rest of the Waze team for handling the issue this fast! Best, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
But what a shame that so much crowd generated data had to be erased because of a stupid license ! Nobody of the OSMF board thought of that ? Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Iván Sánchez Ortega Verzonden: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:43 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org CC: paul.youl...@gmail.com Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data On Wednesday 01 September 2010 09:05:18 paul youlten wrote: I am curious to know why you don't simply give OSM attribution and carry on using the maps? If you read the blog post carefully, you'll find a hint: We are huge fans of OSM and hope to collaborate with OSM through the new license transition. Anyway, kudos to Noam and the rest of the Waze team for handling the issue this fast! Best, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode ___ 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] Waze using OSM Data
You seem to be misunderstanding something here. No data has been deleted. Waze is looking forward to use OSM data after the license change, because the current one doesn't allow them to use the OSM data (even including attribution) the way they do. Claudius Am 01.09.2010 11:13, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: But what a shame that so much crowd generated data had to be erased because of a stupid license ! Nobody of the OSMF board thought of that ? Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Iván Sánchez Ortega Verzonden: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:43 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org CC: paul.youl...@gmail.com Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data On Wednesday 01 September 2010 09:05:18 paul youlten wrote: I am curious to know why you don't simply give OSM attribution and carry on using the maps? If you read the blog post carefully, you'll find a hint: We are huge fans of OSM and hope to collaborate with OSM through the new license transition. Anyway, kudos to Noam and the rest of the Waze team for handling the issue this fast! Best, ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote: Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and compromise. Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed or not. I've been asked ONCE. I formally voted in an OSMF poll very few were in that poll compared to the thousands not in the poll and you cannot claim that you have made even an attempt at asking the community what they want. How many people do you really think you have asked? Remember that some will have been asked more than once. Now that is you numerator, now count the denominator. This might be 'all contributors, ever', or 'contributors active in the last x months', or some other denominator, and then honestly decide if you have polled enough contributors to provide a fair answer. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
On 1 September 2010 20:33, Claudius claudiu...@gmx.de wrote: You seem to be misunderstanding something here. No data has been deleted. Waze is looking forward to use OSM data after the license change, because the current one doesn't allow them to use the OSM data (even including attribution) the way they do. I'm curious as to what specifically is stopping them with the current license, because the current license hasn't stopped MS or MapQuest from using OSM's data... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] problems with the josm-latest.jar downloads
Hi, I just downloaded josm-latest.jar and got the following errors: Exception in thread main java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: Bad version number in .class file at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:676) at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:124) at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:260) at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:56) at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:195) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:188) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:317) at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:280) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:252) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClassInternal(ClassLoader.java:375) -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can OSM sources be public domain CC-0(zero)?
Niklas Cholmkvist towardsoss at gmail.com writes: Hello, When I map, sometimes I add sources to my contributions. It could be a bus route relation where I may add the GPS trace I took while riding the bus as the source for the route. Other times if I name a street I may use a geotagged/geolocated photo of the street sign as a source.(thus proving that the name is the same as the one shown on the street sign) In some cases where I want to fine-adjust the location of a geotagged photo using for example the rendered OSM Mapnik images, will part of my photo(or the photo in whole) become CC-BY-SA-2.0? (this question arised after I considered making all my geotagged -in EXIF- photos public domain CC-0-1.0-Universal) Hi, If you do not want to start a new war, take the coordinates from Google Earth/Maps. Judged by the blog http://www.edparsons.com/2008/10/who-map-is-it-anyway/ Google will not rise a hullabaloo against you. But if you want to have fun check the coordinates from both OSM and Google (and Yahoo and Bing as well) and use the average. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
Claudius, You seem to be misunderstanding something here. No data has been deleted. Waze is looking forward to use OSM data after the license change, because the current one doesn't allow them to use the OSM data (even including attribution) the way they do. [GG] Citation: http://www.waze.com/blog/thanks-and-huge-apology-to-the-openstreetmap-community/ While we sort this out, we have pulled all of the Chile data from Waze. The data has been deleted from the database and should be gone from the Cartouche (our web editing interface) already. It will take 24-48 hours for the deletion to propagate through the system and down to the clients (sorry Chilean Wazers). To be on the safe side, we are pulling all the data from this source, in other countries as well: Peru, Uruguay and parts of Argentina, and it should be removed shortly. This is a direct consequence of OSM not being PD ! From our Homepage: The project (OSM) 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. This is typically a situation where be bite our own tail. A new innovative, creative and unexpected application is forced to withdraw much more data because our license forced them too. because we put legal restrictions on their use Do you really expect that a new License (regardless it's type) will create no more clashes like this ? Shouldn't we remove this pretentious headline from our homepage as long as we do restrict other users ? OSM: go to shame ourselves. Gert Am 01.09.2010 11:13, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: But what a shame that so much crowd generated data had to be erased because of a stupid license ! Nobody of the OSMF board thought of that ? Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Iván Sánchez Ortega Verzonden: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:43 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org CC: paul.youl...@gmail.com Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data On Wednesday 01 September 2010 09:05:18 paul youlten wrote: I am curious to know why you don't simply give OSM attribution and carry on using the maps? If you read the blog post carefully, you'll find a hint: We are huge fans of OSM and hope to collaborate with OSM through the new license transition. Anyway, kudos to Noam and the rest of the Waze team for handling the issue this fast! Best, ___ 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] Waze using OSM Data
On 1 September 2010 21:06, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: OSM: go to shame ourselves. Most OSM software is GPL'd are you telling those authors they should be ashamed of themselves for not publishing under a BSD license instead? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
This is a direct consequence of OSM not being PD ! From our Homepage: The project (OSM) 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. This is typically a situation where be bite our own tail. A new innovative, creative and unexpected application is forced to withdraw much more data because our license forced them too. because we put “legal restrictions on their use” Do you really expect that a new License (regardless it's type) will create no more clashes like this ? Shouldn’t we remove this pretentious headline from our homepage as long as we do restrict other users ? OSM: go to shame ourselves. Yes, to short-cut this can you please go Google BSD GPL, then go read the infinite number of talk, legal-talk, legal-general etc threads on the merits/problems of PD vs Share-Alike before starting yet another. And follow ups on this topic (which I'll assume is OSM should be PD) to legal-general please. Thanks, Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 09/01/2010 10:14 AM, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way of ensuring this than BY-SA The devil you know is better than the devil you don't The devil is in the details. At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible the ODBL is a really bad deal and neither should be accepted as being honest, moral or for the benefit of the project. You may believe that the CTs and ODbL are flawed. People have made suggestions for improvements to the CTs here, and I've seen suggestions for improvements to the ODbL elsewhere that I happen to agree with. You may believe they are morally wrong. I don't, although I understand people's concerns about the responsibility they place on OSMF. But going from these reasonable objections to accusing the actions of the part of the community that you don't agree with of being dishonest, immoral and detrimental is too much of a rhetorical leap. That's a serious allegation and one not borne out by the facts. If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention very much. *Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates your claim of dirty tricks on the part of the people you don't agree with. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 01-09-10 13:14, John Smith schreef: On 1 September 2010 21:06, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: OSM: go to shame ourselves. Most OSM software is GPL'd are you telling those authors they should be ashamed of themselves for not publishing under a BSD license instead? GPL is not the problem here. None of the software has to be distributed to the end user. No distribution = No license violation. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkx+OG8ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3bmgCfQ+iUyTtDe41FEU+SlRetox41 WtgAn1TfUmVX9imY72K4kUz4/dI0aJnU =oIOL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: The devil is in the details. CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print... But going from these reasonable objections to accusing the actions of the part of the community that you don't agree with of being dishonest, immoral and detrimental is too much of a rhetorical leap. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes and all the rest of it? *Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates your claim of dirty tricks on the part of the people you don't agree with. I have no problem with debating the issues, but that isn't all that has been occurring, and if you can honestly say that hasn't been happening, then you haven't been paying attention... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
On 1 September 2010 21:26, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote: GPL is not the problem here. None of the software has to be distributed to the end user. No distribution = No license violation. http://svn.openstreetmap.org/LICENSE ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 01-09-10 13:33, John Smith schreef: On 1 September 2010 21:26, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote: GPL is not the problem here. None of the software has to be distributed to the end user. No distribution = No license violation. http://svn.openstreetmap.org/LICENSE There is NO distribution if someone CHANGES the code, and keeps it for HIM/HERSELF using it. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkx+O60ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1s4wCbBTwCSpoAhKoxHpij7tNKZ0Sy hpIAn3R7tNy6UywJAMiK74ugl3O03mL7 =tsla -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
John Harvey j...@johnharveyphoto.com wrote: OSMDoc is great - it's a shame it's a year out of date. I needed a more modern breakdown of tag statistics so I decided to write a report myself - very quick and dirty (no where near as cool as OSMDoc), but functional to get a breakdown of tag usage. I figured someone else might like to read it too: In cas you don't know it, there is tagstat, a little bit slow but more accurate and with updated data : http://tagstat.hypercube.telascience.org/ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagstat I usually prefer it over osmdoc because it use updated data. -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problems with the josm-latest.jar downloads
Hi. Since end of July JOSM requires Java 6. Perhaps that's the reason for the exception. I would say: check your Java version ;) regards Peter On 01.09.2010 12:41, maning sambale wrote: Hi, I just downloaded josm-latest.jar and got the following errors: Exception in thread main java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: Bad version number in .class file at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:676) at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:124) at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:260) at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:56) at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:195) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:188) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:317) at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:280) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:252) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClassInternal(ClassLoader.java:375) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
John Harvey j...@johnharveyphoto.com wrote: OSMDoc is great - it's a shame it's a year out of date. ... Am Mittwoch, 1. September 2010, 13:40:23 schrieb Pierre-Alain Dorange: In cas you don't know it, there is tagstat, a little bit slow but more accurate and with updated data : http://tagstat.hypercube.telascience.org/ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagstat And just to get a full list. There is also the older, but still working and updated Tagwatch http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagwatch http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/ Jörg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problems with the josm-latest.jar downloads
Thanks Peter. I switched to JAVA 6. All is fine. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Hi. Since end of July JOSM requires Java 6. Perhaps that's the reason for the exception. I would say: check your Java version ;) regards Peter On 01.09.2010 12:41, maning sambale wrote: Hi, I just downloaded josm-latest.jar and got the following errors: Exception in thread main java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: Bad version number in .class file at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:676) at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:124) at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:260) at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:56) at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:195) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:188) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:317) at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:280) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:252) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClassInternal(ClassLoader.java:375) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
On 01/09/2010 12:56, Jörg Ehrichs wrote: And just to get a full list. There is also the older, but still working and updated Tagwatch http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagwatch http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/ I maybe missing something, but is there a search facility? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can OSM sources be public domain CC-0(zero)?
Hi, take the coordinates from Google Earth/Maps. I will not. That is a non-free source, the same reason I do not look/consider Wikimapia(google maps based) or any other proprietary maps. OSM may currently be the freest data collection that exists (since CC-BY-SA-3.0 is legally invalid for OSM data according to Creative Commons) or that will exist (since OSM will soon move to a legally valid license). Not to worry though... ...because the simplest solution is to just leave my photos synchronised with the gps traces and simply not fine-adjust them. Thus I can still give them under CC-0-1.0-Universal . So I think I've got it clearer now in my mind on what to do. We use what we have. Regards, Niklas -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
OSMDoc is great - it's a shame it's a year out of date. I needed a more modern breakdown of tag statistics so I decided to write a report myself - very quick and dirty (no where near as cool as OSMDoc), but functional to get a breakdown of tag usage. I figured someone else might like to read it too: Well thank you very much. I'm painfully aware of the missing updates and I'm working on it on and off but I don't have the time to put a lot of effort into it most of the time. I still hope for fresh data this month. The database schema is pretty easy though so if anyone has data laying around this is what I would need: tag_keys: id integer, total_count integer, changeset_count integer, node_count integer, relation_count integer, way_count integer, name character varying(255), value_count integer tag_values: id integer, total_count integer, changeset_count integer, node_count integer, relation_count integer, way_count integer, name character varying(255), key_id integer Cheers, Lars (author of OSMdoc) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 09/01/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: The devil is in the details. CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print... So does BY-SA. And you should see GNU's GPL/copyright waiver/copyright assignment combination. They are all trying to be as complete as possible given their respective tasks. But going from these reasonable objections to accusing the actions of the part of the community that you don't agree with of being dishonest, immoral and detrimental is too much of a rhetorical leap. So you condone the actions of people committing character assassinations, Not when it was against OSMF/LWG members and not now. But if you are accusing people of something that you yourself are doing, or are debating in bad faith, then that being demonstrated is not character assassination. muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes The only abuse of statistics I've seen are the attempts to move the goalposts after the vote was taken. and all the rest of it? The rest of what? *Despite* paying attention I haven't seen anything that substantiates your claim of dirty tricks on the part of the people you don't agree with. I have no problem with debating the issues, Cool. Let's get back on topic, then. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
Am 01.09.2010 15:15, schrieb Lars Francke: OSMDoc is great - it's a shame it's a year out of date. I needed a more modern breakdown of tag statistics so I decided to write a report myself - very quick and dirty (no where near as cool as OSMDoc), but functional to get a breakdown of tag usage. I figured someone else might like to read it too: Well thank you very much. I'm painfully aware of the missing updates and I'm working on it on and off but I don't have the time to put a lot of effort into it most of the time. I still hope for fresh data this month. What is the problem in running the import, that you did once, again, completely replacing the outdated data. I know how painful it can be to read .osc files into a database, but a simple re-import would help a lot. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
Jane Smith schrieb: The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John, the longer we can disrupt things! Thanks for stating in a very obvious way what you are here for. And what this community needs is collaboration, not disruption, so either try working together with everyone else or go somewhere else. This is from a simple OSM contributor who is not a member of LWG or OSMF but knows mow much work it is to coordinate and lead a large and open project and respects anyone who tries to get volunteer contributors to follow a common path. Be with us or leave us, but by calling for disruption you are ultimately destroying the whole free mapping community, and I don't think that's what even you ultimately want. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
2010/9/1 Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: What is the problem in running the import, that you did once, again, completely replacing the outdated data. he wrote on the German ML that he lost the program which did the import. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
On 01/09/2010 14:15, Lars Francke wrote: Well thank you very much. Cheers, Lars (author of OSMdoc) Hi Lars The search facility appears to only search the key tag not the values tag. Is there a way to overcome this? For instance - parking. It doesn't list amenity=parking or any other *=parking. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 1 September 2010 14:42, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Francis Davey schrieb: Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to certain exceptions. While that may be true, anyone not trusting the organization that operates all of the software and hardware of the project (the OSMF in our case) should not have contributed any data to the project as a whole in the first place. That's a different point I think. All I was trying to clarify was the effect any contractual tying of OSMF's hands might have. Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be transferred to someone else who you may trust less. I'm not saying it will happen or is even likely to happen, but I'm afraid as a lawyer I'm inclined to be cautious about the far future. Copyright (which is one of the rights in issue) can last a very long time and much can change over that period. I'm not expressing a view about the rights and wrongs of anything though. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote: Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be transferred to someone else who you may trust less. I'm not saying it will happen or is even likely to happen, but I'm afraid as a lawyer I'm inclined to be cautious about the far future. Copyright (which is one of the rights in issue) can last a very long time and much can change over that period. Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against if they haven't already. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] ethnio.com javascripts loaded on osm user registration page
Hi, Because I'm curious to read how new users see openstreetmap when they register (and also a curious chance to see the new contributor terms :) ) I went to the registration page of openstreetmap https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new . Why does that page load scripts from ethnio.com? Those scripts are not used on the main page at http://www.openstreetmap.org/ . I tried to find any reference on the OSM wiki about ethnio.com but I didn't find any references. No references on Wikipedia either. Both searches for ethnio and ethnio.com were used. It makes me a bit uneasy, being a user of tor every new javascript poses an extra little risk of unmasking the IP. (not that the internet isn't already swarming with javascripts loaded from 3rd party sites ;) hehe) I'm looking forward to comments.. mainly on ethnio.com, -- niklas.gpg Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Waze using OSM Data
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:44 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I'm curious as to what specifically is stopping them with the current license, because the current license hasn't stopped MS or MapQuest from using OSM's data... It's that pesky ShareAlike part, I'm sure. When looking at the OSM licensing terms, we felt that they might limit us from certain business models in the future, and, therefore, we decided to use TIGER maps. (http://www.waze.com/faq/) I guess the ODbL and its ShareAlikeSorta works better with their business model. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 01/09/2010 10:22, Andy Allan wrote: ...leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Too whinge purely because you can't deal with a few emails is childishness in itself. Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ethnio.com javascripts loaded on osm user registration page
I don't know why this script is included and when the target shows up, but it targets (whenever) to https://ethnio.com/remotes/62786/edit? May be anyone knows what's the reason for putting ethnio-recruting service on the page Marco Am 01.09.2010 16:07, schrieb Niklas Cholmkvist: Hi, Because I'm curious to read how new users see openstreetmap when they register (and also a curious chance to see the new contributor terms :) ) I went to the registration page of openstreetmap https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new . Why does that page load scripts from ethnio.com? Those scripts are not used on the main page at http://www.openstreetmap.org/ . I tried to find any reference on the OSM wiki about ethnio.com but I didn't find any references. No references on Wikipedia either. Both searches for ethnio and ethnio.com were used. It makes me a bit uneasy, being a user of tor every new javascript poses an extra little risk of unmasking the IP. (not that the internet isn't already swarming with javascripts loaded from 3rd party sites ;) hehe) I'm looking forward to comments.. mainly on ethnio.com, ___ 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] ethnio.com javascripts loaded on osm user registration page
On 01/09/10 15:07, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote: Because I'm curious to read how new users see openstreetmap when they register (and also a curious chance to see the new contributor terms :) ) I went to the registration page of openstreetmap https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new . Why does that page load scripts from ethnio.com? Those scripts are not used on the main page at http://www.openstreetmap.org/ . It's for doing recruitment for some UX testing that Steve was working on. When it is enabled (by ethnio) a percentage of visitors are shown a popup inviting them to take part in a UX test. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can OSM sources be public domain CC-0(zero)?
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: Someone wrote: take the coordinates from Google Earth/Maps. I will not. That is a non-free source, the same reason I do not look/consider Wikimapia(google maps based) or any other proprietary maps. OSM may currently be the freest data collection that exists (since CC-BY-SA-3.0 is legally invalid for OSM data according to Creative Commons) If OSM data is PD, then so is Google data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!
What is the problem in running the import, that you did once, again, completely replacing the outdated data. he wrote on the German ML that he lost the program which did the import. Thank you Martin. He is correct. I don't have the script anymore that did the import and it didn't work very well either for various reasons. I could probably just use the thing that tagstats is using but as far as I know that keeps everything in RAM and I don't have access to a machine that could run this...but if my current attempt doesn't work I'll investigate this route. Cheers, Lars ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting process
I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949 I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process
On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949 I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. cheers, Martin This is a page about voting on new ways to tag items so the tagging forum is the correct place. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process
Martin wrote: I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. Perhaps I'm a bit jaded at the moment, but I think [tagging] is a better choice. If something is important then it should have its own list, such as legal-talk, tagging, HOT and the like. If it's not important then here is perfect (includes this email of mine). Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On 08/30/2010 10:41 AM, Graham Jones wrote: I think we might need some finer grained assessment of c, because as my son gets bigger (or I get older!) I am finding I give up on more tracks than I used to... Does anyone know if there is such a scheme in use already, or would we need to invent a new one? You may want to have a look at the (much-maligned) smoothness tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness#Values —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process
2010/9/1 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949 I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. cheers, Martin This is a page about voting on new ways to tag items so the tagging forum is the correct place. The page is the main page that describes the proposal-process. Prior to making a proposal I generally would suggest to ask others if they already tag a specific thing in a certain way. If not I suggest to discuss the best way to so in [tagging]. After discussion (and eventually modification) of the definition, it should go to the voting. I do not want everybody who wants to vote on new features to read all the tagging-list contributions. Personally I read both list (don't know how I can manage), so this is not my personal concern. If most people here agree that tagging is fine, I'm fine with it too. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
