date:20100903


On 09/03/2010 10:03 AM, Simon Ward wrote:


I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
terms.  There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as
close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a
significant change.


If anyone can suggest a way of combining the ability to change the 
licence in future with increasingly not being able to do so as more and 
more contributors become uncontactable I'm sure a compromise can be 
found. ;-)



The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
the licence change.


This is a change that cannot be sugar-coated. It is needed in order to 
ensure that if future changes become necessary they can be made.


I'm sorry to be harsh but I think that concentrating on the risks of the 
new CTs rather than the risks they are meant to address shows a failure 
of perspective. I don't believe that a stoic or pollyannaish acceptance 
that the licence of OSM may gradually be rendered ineffective by change 
outside the project is morally superior to enabling the project to rise 
to future challenges.


The current licencing of OSM isn't perfect, that's why things are meant 
to be changing. Even if the ODbL is perfect when it is applied, it may 
not be in future. We cannot know, and yes that cuts both ways. But we 
can look at other projects and see that some of the largest and most 
successful have relicenced. And we can see that new threats to Free 
Software and Free culture keep arising. Free geodata is unlikely to be 
any different.


And if people are worried that future changes will not be to their 
liking they need to get involved in the process more actively.



These contributor terms define a large part of how the future direction
of OSM may be determined.


They define in large part that it *may* be determined.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And
the user knows this because of the ODbL advertisement attached to the BY-SA
work.


Why does the ODbL apply?  Maybe in a state with database rights laws,
but in a state without database rights laws, if the data isn't covered
by BY-SA (and therefore copyright law), it wouldn't be covered by ODbL
either.


If it is possible for the data, or the database, to be covered by 
copyright law then teleporting it doesn't strip that copyright. The 
copyright provisions of the ODbL therefore still apply after you 
teleport it.



Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as
an SVG file.


Do you mean that they distribute a database as an SVG file in some way, 
or that they render the database as a map in an SVG file?


In the former case the database is a database, and it's covered directly 
by the ODbL.


In the latter, the map is a map and it's a produced work, so it can be 
covered by whichever licence you like but must advertise the 
availability of the ODbL database that it was produced from.


In neither case is there a problem. I would refer you back to the 
examples I gave of different kinds of copyrightable and uncopyrightable 
works being represented as software and data.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

 So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
 anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
 therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And
 the user knows this because of the ODbL advertisement attached to the
 BY-SA
 work.

 Why does the ODbL apply?  Maybe in a state with database rights laws,
 but in a state without database rights laws, if the data isn't covered
 by BY-SA (and therefore copyright law), it wouldn't be covered by ODbL
 either.

 If it is possible for the data, or the database, to be covered by copyright
 law then teleporting it doesn't strip that copyright. The copyright
 provisions of the ODbL therefore still apply after you teleport it.

And the provisions of CC-BY-SA would apply as well.  Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.

 Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as
 an SVG file.

 Do you mean that they distribute a database as an SVG file in some way, or
 that they render the database as a map in an SVG file?

I'm not sure what the difference is.  The latter describes how you
accomplish the former.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:]
 Unless you're
 talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
 database, anyway.

 See thread title. ;-)

Okay...Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a
BY-SA Produced Work?

Doesn't this include a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA
and ODbL data?

The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.

 Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as
 an SVG file.

 Do you mean that they distribute a database as an SVG file in some way,
 or
 that they render the database as a map in an SVG file?

 I'm not sure what the difference is.

 In the former, the contents of the SVG file would be a database and would be
 a Covered Database under the ODbL. In the latter it would be a piece of
 cartography or graphic design and so would be a Produced Work under the
 ODbL.

 The ODbL can tell the difference.

 The latter describes how you accomplish the former.

 It does not. The latter describes how you distribute a Produced Work, the
 former describes how you distribute a Covered Database.

Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
 create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
 data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.

The answer from ODC seems to be that yes, you can create a BY-SA
Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL data, and that it
doesn't make the ODbL data BY-SA, because the data is not a creative
work (and therefore can't be copyrighted).

This is actually quite a brilliant analysis.  But it means, in
non-database-rights jurisdictions, that the extracted data isn't ODbL
either (unless you were dumb enough to agree to the ODbL, anyway).

Now I see why Frederik likes the ODbL so much.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:52 PM, Anthony wrote:


The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.


That's a different question, to which the answer is no. Quoting an 
all-rights-reserved text in a BY-SA article doesn't make the ARR text 
BY-SA either. BY-SA doesn't cover what it can't cover.



Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.


A Derivative Database is not a Produced Work. And map and database 
are mutually exclusive practically and legally speaking. The ODbL has 
the ability to recognise these differences.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:58 PM, Anthony wrote:

But it means, in
non-database-rights jurisdictions, that the extracted data isn't ODbL
either (unless you were dumb enough to agree to the ODbL, anyway).


It does not mean that at all. If the extracted data is Substantial 
enough to be covered by copyright on the database, the ODbL applies and 
it is a Derivative Database.


(I should add to all of these comments that IANAL, TINLA, etc.)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:04 PM, Anthony wrote:


Also complicating matters is that the individual data are released
under DbCL.  It's not really clear what that means in a jurisdiction
which doesn't have a database right,


The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the 
contents of the database. That's why the DbCL exists.



but it's hard to see how you can
protect an unordered (or trivially ordered) collection of data which
individually are DbCL.


  

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the contents of
the database. That's why the DbCL exists.


but it's hard to see how you can
protect an unordered (or trivially ordered) collection of data which
individually are DbCL.


 


But the extract is not the database.  It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.


Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* 
Derivative Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
 But the extract is not the database.  It may be *a* database, but it's
 not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.

 Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* Derivative
 Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)

ODbL term definitions only matter if the extract is protected by law.

I can't write a license which says you can't copy a substantial
portion of my phone book white pages and then expect to enforce it on
people who haven't agreed to those terms.  Not in a
non-database-rights and non-sweat-of-the-brow jurisdiction, anyway.

Whether or not the database is a Derivative Database only matters if
the database is a derivative database.  And if you haven't copied any
of the copyrightable portions of the original database, it isn't.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 05:50 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:

But the extract is not the database.  It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.


Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* Derivative
Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)


ODbL term definitions only matter if the extract is protected by law.


Well yes but then that's true of BY-SA as well, and BY-SA avails itself 
of less of the law.



I can't write a license which says you can't copy a substantial
portion of my phone book white pages and then expect to enforce it on
people who haven't agreed to those terms.  Not in a
non-database-rights and non-sweat-of-the-brow jurisdiction, anyway.


In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.


Whether or not the database is a Derivative Database only matters if
the database is a derivative database.  And if you haven't copied any
of the copyrightable portions of the original database, it isn't.


A Derivative Database will be covered by copyright/database 
right/contract law to the extent possible. BY-SA has 33% of that 
coverage at most.


So I'm not really clear about what the problem is meant to be.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.

Agreed.  All I'm saying is that ODbL appears to be equivalent to BY-SA
in this sense, not that it covers less (though, the DbCL stuff might,
see my next message).

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of the
database to that of facts.

It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher. It rests on the assumption
that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at least, that any
extract from a Produced Work would consist solely of factual data).
But that's probably a good assumption in many cases (e.g. tracing
roads without copying the categorization of those roads).

Given the DbCL I'm not sure that the contents being non-factual would change
things. But if you are concerned about this you should ask on odc-discuss.

I guess. Although it's not really the ODbL that gets me confused but
the CT, where it says DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the
database.

Even more specifically, the individual contents. What constitutes
individual? A row in the database? Is a way an individual piece,
and if so, what does that mean (does an individual piece which is a
way mean just the ordered node references, or does it include the
lat/lons of the nodes which are referenced). Etc.

Clearly an individual way could, in theory (not in OSM practice), be
copyrightable
(http://thisworldisnotforsale.com/cgi-bin/james/040821_taking_Line_For_Walk/singleLineFaces400x331.jpg).
If such a database were released with DbCL 1.0 for the individual
contents of the database, would the way be DbCL, or would it be ODbL?
Would it make a difference if the way were split into 1,000 different
connected ways?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
 That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
 the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
 Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
 a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it.
 Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see
 http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7

That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems
with imports.  One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the
grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,
irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over
anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any
other.  It's hard to see how the ODbL can work without the latter.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

2010-09-03 Per discussione andrzej zaborowski

Hi,

On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems
 with imports.  One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the

That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls
can show anything) that some issues are not part of that consensus
which some people claim there is (even if as they said consensus is
compromise, which sounds just wrong to me).

 grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,
 irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over
 anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any
 other.  It's hard to see how the ODbL can work without the latter.

Risking going a little off-topic, some members of the LWG have
expressed that CC-By compatibility should be a solvable problem.  Any
change I can imagine that would solve the CC-By compatibility would
also solve ODbL compatibility, because they're both affected by this
problem, no? (assuming that the relicense clause isn't there)

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


Hi,

Anthony wrote:

Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.


The ODbL itself does not draw a clear line between Covered Database and 
Produced Work. A common definition of the term database as given e.g. 
in the EU database directive would apply even to a PNG fie, whereas we 
clearly do not want a map tile to be considered a database. Then again a 
PNG that simply contains a coded version of the full database would 
certainly be a database as far as we're concerned.


This is something that we the project have to define, and the current 
suggestion of LWG is


If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is 
a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.


See 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.


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] Noise vs unanswered questions


Hi,

andrzej zaborowski wrote:

That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal about it.


Being able to relicense is certainly good. And if that means less 
imports that's even better ;)


Honestly, and maybe that debate should have been had in more detail long 
ago, I think that imports are generally bad with only a few limited 
exceptions, and my vision for the future OSM is not that we are some 
kind of collection point for other peoples' datasets. The past has shown 
that imports have a short-term wow effect and very little else to offer.



Despite that it does not seem the majority thinks so, please see
http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7


If we have the CT as they currently stand, we can *still* import 
datasets by granting an exception (i.e. import a dataset for ODbL 
distribution only with no license upgrade clause for that dataset). 
Should we ever change the license in the future, that data will be lost, 
but we *can* make such exceptions on a case-by-case basis.


However, if we decide against the relicensing clause in the CT then we 
don't have the same option (ok let's relicense at the cost of losing 
that imported data).


Imports are overrated and should be strictly limited (and controlled 
more than they are today). But imports under ODbL do not become 
*impossible* with the CTs as they are suggested - they just require OSMF 
approval. So the question is not put very well.


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] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Anthony wrote:

 Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
 :).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
 Produced Work and database are not.

 The ODbL itself does not draw a clear line between Covered Database and
 Produced Work. A common definition of the term database as given e.g. in
 the EU database directive would apply even to a PNG fie, whereas we clearly
 do not want a map tile to be considered a database.

Exactly.

 Then again a PNG that
 simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a
 database as far as we're concerned.

Why would it matter?

 This is something that we the project have to define, and the current
 suggestion of LWG is

 If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
 database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.

 See
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.

LOL, I hope you go with that definition.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


Hi,

Anthony wrote:

Then again a PNG that
simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a
database as far as we're concerned.


Why would it matter?


I think it is meant as an added safeguard against reverse engineering.

ODbL already says that if you extract the database from a Produced Work 
then what you get is an ODbL database, so even if someone encodes the 
full database into a PNG then releases that CC-BY, someone else who 
extracts the database doesn't gain anything (he doesn't suddently end up 
with a non-share-alike database). However it is even better if we have a 
theoretical means to stop people from distributing such special PNGs 
under CC-BY.



If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.

See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.


LOL, I hope you go with that definition.


Actually, I liked an earlier version better: If someone makes something 
from an ODbL dataset and declares it a Produced Work, then it is 
considered a Produced Work. - It is refreshingly simple and doesn't 
actually open any loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put 
the PostGIS dump on a CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used 
it would fall under the reverse engineering clause.


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] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

 If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
 database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.

 See

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.

 LOL, I hope you go with that definition.

 Actually, I liked an earlier version better: If someone makes something
 from an ODbL dataset and declares it a Produced Work, then it is considered
 a Produced Work. - It is refreshingly simple and doesn't actually open any
 loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put the PostGIS dump on a
 CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used it would fall under the
 reverse engineering clause.

Yes, the current version opens up far *more* loopholes.  Having a
Derivative Database treated as a Produced Work isn't the problem.
Having a Produced Work treated as a Derivative Database is.

Of course, I hope you go with the definition with the most loopholes.
I don't like ODbL.

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works


Hi,

   in a recent discussion on the German OSM Intertubes, we discussed 
whether ODbL would give a map producer the freedom to license his work 
under a noncommercial license.


My take was yes of course, because I always thought of a map as a 
produced work.


(The background was that we have some staunch anti-commerce people who 
see ODbL as the devil's work because it will allow commercially licensed 
produced works, to which I usually reply yes but currently you have no 
way to prohibit commerical use of things you make from OSM, whereas in 
the ODbL future you will have that option.)


However, some of these people create *Garmin Maps*, which are 
essentially a vector database and thus it seems that they would be a 
derived database rather than a produced work.


This, however, would reduce their options (and of course at the same 
times those of the evil commercial users) - as a derived database, the 
Garmin map would have to be published under ODbL.


Now given the recently quoted definition from the Wiki:

If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is 
a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.


I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose 
of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map on the Garmin device. In 
doing so, the device does extract data from the file (but so does a PNG 
viewer). The GMAPSUPP.IMG file is not a container for transporting OSM 
data, but it is possible to use third-party software to extract the data 
from it.


Three(ish) questions:

1. Do you think that a Garmin map is a derived database or a produced work?

2. Do you think that this is good, or would it be better if it were 
different?


3. How will we deal with such questions in the future? Is the OSMF board 
the ultimate arbiter? Can the definition be changed to be clearer?


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] Garmin Maps / Produced Works

2010-09-03 Per discussione John Smith

This is pretty much in line with Francis' claim about copyright being
on maps, and copyright law not stating anything about the form the map
comes in, but of course without court cases on the matter we're all
left guessing.

Next problem with the Garmin maps, suppose they use extracts from
Geofabrik, who sources data from OSM directly, but someone abuses the
Garmin maps, would OSM-F have to sue Geofabrik and in turn sue who
ever produced the Garmin maps to enforce the contract part of ODBL?

What happens if the person downloading the Garmin map packs doesn't
abuse them directly, but puts them up via p2p, and OSM-F is removed
from the actual offender by 10 degrees of separation, how will the
ODBL actually be enforced, the recent Waze issue was a good example,
they copied the data from another party, what has actually happened to
the other party to stop them selling the data to others?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!

2010-09-03 Per discussione Peter Körner


Am 01.09.2010 15:15, schrieb Lars Francke:

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


There's one thing I've been missing: the changeset_count. How do you 
calculate it? Is it the number of distinct changesets that have used 
this tag resp. tag/calue combination?


I'd then implement it using another two tables

changeset_keys: changeset integer, key_id integer
changeset_values: changeset integer, key_id integer, value_id integer

to check if a specific key / value is already used in a changeset and 
not incrementing changeset_count then.


Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!

2010-09-03 Per discussione M∡rtin Koppenhoefer

 Am 01.09.2010 15:15, schrieb Lars Francke:

 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

will there be a way to determine, which / how many different users did
use a certain key/tag?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!

2010-09-03 Per discussione Sam Vekemans

hi Peter,
It will be great to see your resaults, then i can compare them with
the current tagging system used by
CanVec/Tiger/linz/garmin/mapnik/cyclemap/josm/potlatch/mapzen/merkaartor
and others.


I found that many tags are 'primary tag dependent', meaning that using
the tag alone on a node/way/area does not directly produce a map
feature.
ie. 'access=*' and 'surface=*' .. and 'name=*user_defined' all require
something else to make a map feature.  In the example you need
'highway=*' to make any of the 3 do something.'
So these tags can be grouped into a category and numbered in a easily
understandable TagID#


I'm still working on this idea, the temporary name is 'Schematroll 2.01' :-)


Cheers,
Sam

On 9/3/10, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
 Am 01.09.2010 15:15, schrieb Lars Francke:
 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

 There's one thing I've been missing: the changeset_count. How do you
 calculate it? Is it the number of distinct changesets that have used
 this tag resp. tag/calue combination?

 I'd then implement it using another two tables

 changeset_keys: changeset integer, key_id integer
 changeset_values: changeset integer, key_id integer, value_id integer

 to check if a specific key / value is already used in a changeset and
 not incrementing changeset_count then.

 Peter

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



-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
Skype: samvekemans
IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
@Acrosscanadatrails

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!

2010-09-03 Per discussione Lars Francke

 The database schema is pretty easy though so if anyone has data laying
 around this is what I would need

 I've put together a script that creates this schema [1]. I used php  expat
 for the xml parsing and pl/pgsql for the counting/update/insert part.

Wow! That's awesome. Thank you for your work. I'll be back home next
week and will give it a go then.

About the changeset count: I did it the same way I did all others. The
planet extract has a dump of all changesets in it (at the very
beginning) and those have tag elements as well so they shouldn't
need any special treatment.

Cheers,
Lars

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!

2010-09-03 Per discussione Peter Körner


Am 03.09.2010 11:09, schrieb Lars Francke:

The database schema is pretty easy though so if anyone has data laying
around this is what I would need


I've put together a script that creates this schema [1]. I used php  expat
for the xml parsing and pl/pgsql for the counting/update/insert part.


Wow! That's awesome. Thank you for your work. I'll be back home next
week and will give it a go then.

About the changeset count: I did it the same way I did all others. The
planet extract has a dump of all changesets in it (at the very
beginning) and those havetag  elements as well so they shouldn't
need any special treatment.


Ah, I see. The Planet-Extracts I worked with had the changesets stripped 
out, so I haven't thought about that. I'll change the script to import 
the changeset count, too.


Do you have the ability to run it on your server? If not I could maybe 
run it on the wikimedia toolservers and post a bz2 compressed sql dump 
with the results.


Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMDoc is awesome!

2010-09-03 Per discussione Peter Körner


Am 03.09.2010 13:23, schrieb Peter Körner:

Ah, I see. The Planet-Extracts I worked with had the changesets stripped
out, so I haven't thought about that. I'll change the script to import
the changeset count, too.


I have implemented the changeset count now. There's no filter capability 
(eg. drop fixme values or don't import changeset-comments) but it would 
be easy to implement it efficiently.


If you need it, just send a mail.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:


And the provisions of CC-BY-SA would apply as well.


To any BY-SA licenced work, yes.


Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.


See thread title. ;-)


Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as
an SVG file.


Do you mean that they distribute a database as an SVG file in some way, or
that they render the database as a map in an SVG file?


I'm not sure what the difference is.


In the former, the contents of the SVG file would be a database and 
would be a Covered Database under the ODbL. In the latter it would be a 
piece of cartography or graphic design and so would be a Produced Work 
under the ODbL.


The ODbL can tell the difference.


The latter describes how you accomplish the former.


It does not. The latter describes how you distribute a Produced Work, 
the former describes how you distribute a Covered Database.


- Rob.

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

[OSM-talk] Geographic objects

2010-09-03 Per discussione Christian H. Bruhn

Hi!

If we look at the OSM-map (you can take each), there will be missing
the name of most of all geographic objects. You will not find the
Atlantic Ocean, the Alpes or anything else.

I think it is very important to give geographic objects names and
display them on a map. The map will look more complete and you can
work the information e.g. if someone tells you that he went hiking in
the Alpes and you don't know where they are, you take a look at OSM
and you will find it.

In the next breaks I will concentrate on water objects as an example.
But it is not limited to this. You can use it for every geographic
object.

Which tag can we use?

I thought about 'natural' or 'geographic'. But we use the
'natural'-key already to describe that there is water. 'geographic'
would be a new tag, but I think that we can you 'place' for this
purpose. We use it already for islands. So we can expand the tag with
different values like:

  place=ocean
  place=sea
  place=bay
  place=archipelago
  place=mountain_range
  place=low_mountain-range
  place=landscape
  ...
  place=deep_ocean_trench
  ...

As you can see there is no limitation for mapping all kind of objects.

How should these objects look like?

There is already a now for the Baltic Sea [1] (and it is tagged with
'place=sea') You might think that this is the most easy way to tag a
sea. You're right. It is easy but not so satisfying.

When you create a map on which is only a part of the Baltic Sea which
doesn't contains the node, you could not display the name. If you
have just the coastline, you have no information what kind of sea or
ocean it belongs. And in some non-OSM printed maps you have the name
extended to almost over the whole sea.

So we need to describe the shape ob the object. Luckily we have
already the coastlines-ways. Historically we were not able to handle
such giant object like a sea. But now we hvae the
multipolygon-relations which we already use for national borders. We
only have to create MP-relations with the tag place=* and name:*=* to
map geographic objects.

You can create overlapping objects. Oceans and seas are often divided
into different seas. Just create one the whole sea (like the
Mediterranean Sea) and then create a different MP-relation (like the
Adriatic Sea). It doesn't bother if the objects overlaps. For
rendering you can use the size and shape of the MP to display the
name.

One thing I forgot: Of course you have to create new lines where the
sea ends and goes over to another sea. And sometimes it is not easy
to tell exactly where one sea or bay ends. But it is like always in
OSM: Map the object as good as you can, and if somebody knows it
better he could improve the object.

I created an MP for the Mediterranean Sea as an example [2]. These
relation describes only the outer-line; the inner have to add later.
But the JOSM-plugin WaySelector crashed on my machine [3], so that I
had to click every single coastline-way.

The only thing I am not sure about is how to exactly tag this
'superrelation' as a MP. The example contains 7 MP-relations with each
about 500 ways. The relations are put together in one 'superrelation'.
But I think we should use mother- and children-relations for large
objects, otherwise the relations will to big and hard to work with.

Please feel free to improve the example, to create new geographic
objects, to test how to use them (renderer, namesearch, etc.) or to
bring in new ideas.

Christian

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413554195
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1159204
[3] http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5394


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

2010-09-03 Per discussione SteveC

Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed?

Have fun,

Steve | stevecoast.com

On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
 On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote:
 
 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus?
 OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else?
 
 Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or
 minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a
 compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus.
 It represents a compromise between many different ideological
 positions present in the community around the norms that have
 emerged in discussion over the years.
 
 I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
 terms.  There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as
 close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a
 significant change.
 
 The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
 the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
 licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
 the licence change.
 
 These contributor terms define a large part of how the future direction
 of OSM may be determined.
 
 Simon
 -- 
 A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
 simple system that works.—John Gall
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Geographic objects

2010-09-03 Per discussione M∡rtin Koppenhoefer

2010/9/3 Christian H. Bruhn br...@arcor.de:
 Hi!

 If we look at the OSM-map (you can take each), there will be missing
 the name of most of all geographic objects. You will not find the
 Atlantic Ocean, the Alpes or anything else.


I second this. I liked the idea expressed by Martin Simon on Talk-DE,
who proposed for valleys, mountain ranges and other vaguely defined
areas to map them as relations but not with a determined contour but
simply by adding some casual nodes (of already existing geometry) at
the supposed border (and inside the area). Then you (renderer,
namefinder, ...) could create a hull around those to render e.g. an
area text with the name. This would not require to close the polygons
(i.e. for oceans and seas it is logical to add coastlines, but you
might in many cases not need to create artificial way-boundaries in
the middle of the sea).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Geographic objects

2010-09-03 Per discussione Lennard


On 3-9-2010 19:37, Christian H. Bruhn wrote:


I think it is very important to give geographic objects names and
display them on a map. The map will look more complete and you can
work the information e.g. if someone tells you that he went hiking in
the Alpes and you don't know where they are, you take a look at OSM
and you will find it.


What you are describing is a toponym[1]. A toponym is the name of a 
geographic feature, not only places, but also all the other examples you 
give, like forests, mountain ranges, etc.


Water names are called a hydronym, but as a subclass of the science 
toponymy and for the sake of tagging that could also count as a toponym.


We've been using toponyms in The Netherlands ever since we had data that 
described a geographic feature with dozens of smaller polygons. For 
example, whereas first we had a simple, generalised landuse=forest, we 
now have dozens of polygons in the same area. Adding a name=* for all of 
them sounded a bit out of whack. A single one of those polygons is not 
by itself the forest. Rather, all of them together form that forest.


So we retag the generic polygon, from landuse=forest to toponym=forest, 
keeping the name=* (and by current necessity, adding area=yes). A user 
of the data can parse the toponym, see what kind it is, and apply it to 
the entire area. For example, a renderer can see toponym=forest, 
recognize it as a forest, and render the label in the same style it 
would use for landuse=forest.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toponymy

--
Lennard

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

Re: [talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.

2010-09-03 Per discussione Mark Pulley


On 31/08/2010, at 10:19 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:

A more useful QA task is making sure straight roads are straight and  
only have required nodes.



This assumes that the road actually is straight. Last year I added a  
street in a village, with additional nodes between the intersections.  
Recently I added some more streets in the same village. I noticed that  
in the intervening year, someone had 'helpfully' removed the extra  
nodes between the intersections - however I had to add them back, as  
the road between the intersections isn't straight. (And no, I'm not  
telling you who did it!)


This hopefully won't happen again here, as now there are two GPS  
traces on that section of road, both showing the bends in the road.


Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] GPS traces

2010-09-03 Per discussione Steve Bennett

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 I have removed all my gps traces from the OSM database.

How come?

Steve

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

Re: [Talk-de] Perl Relation Analyzer


Am 02.09.10 19:21, schrieb Gary68:

Relation check im Wiki



Kann der auch gpx-Ausgabe?

Gruß,
André Joost


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

Re: [Talk-de] Perl Relation Analyzer


Am 02.09.10 17:57, schrieb Rainer Kluge:


Da der Relation Analyzer auf
http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/ offenbar ständig
überlastet ist, habe ich mir auf die Schnelle ein Perl-Skript gebastelt, welches
mir im wesentlichen die selbe Funktionalität bietet: Zusammenfassen der Wege zu
zusammenhängenden Segmenten, Hinweise auf grobe Fehler, Erzeugen eines 
GPX-Files.

Bevor ich das Skript weiter perfektioniere, wollte ich hier mal nachfragen, ob
es ein vergleichbares Skript schon irgendwo zum Herunterladen gibt, wenn ja, wo?



Ich bastel auch gerade an einer offline-Lösung zur Erzeugung von 
zusammenhängenden gpx-files. Leider kann ich programmiertechnisch nur 
mit Visual Basic unter Windows dienen :-(


Gruß,
André Joost



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

Re: [Talk-de] ÖPNVkarte - Situation verbessern?


Am 02.09.10 23:11, schrieb C. Brause:

Am 30.08.2010 21:17, schrieb Hanno Böck:

Hi,

Ich halte die ÖPNV-Karte ja gerade für eines der Killerfeatures von OSM
(zumindest eines von denen die ich selber sehr oft benutze). Leider
scheint es
ja grad öfters Probleme zu geben.

Deshalb, da ich auch nicht weiss wer dafür zuständig ist:
- Woran hakt es?
- Wird Hilfe gebraucht um die Situation zu verbessern?
- Braucht es bessere Hardware?

Ich würde gern dazu beitragen, dass das zuverlässiger tut.


Da winkt einer mit Hardware und keiner reagiert...

Ich kann da leider auch nichts zu sagen. Melde sich jemand, bevor er
sichs anders überlegt! ;-)



Darf der arme Melchior Moos nicht auch mal Urlaub machen?

Er wird sich mit Sicherheit hier oder beim edlen Spender melden.

Gruß,
André Joost


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

Re: [Talk-de] Im Bau befindliche Brücke