Discussion:
[OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Jaakko Helleranta.com
2011-06-22 16:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

This may well be my first post to the talk list so let me very briefly
introduce myself.

I started mapping with OSM beginning of 2008 as what I'd say mostly a
"vacation/travel mapper" + mapping some home corners -- that is, until the
earth quake in Haiti last year.

The quake spiked my interest to OSM and was part of the reason why I ended
up moving here last September (working on something else but using a good
chunk of my time on OSM).

But to go to the point:

Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2 I'm
seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange, too).

So what?

As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the
world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements.

The thing is that what many have reported and what I've seen first hand OSM
has made and keeps on making a clearly positive difference not only in
crisis response but also in peoples' everyday lives for growing numbers of
people especially in countries like Haiti.

While I fully respect everybody's decision to do (including allow not to do)
what ever they want with their contributions I want to raise a
thought/question (in case no one has before) that it would be an awful shame
if we'd have to trash as much data from OSM, the _only_ good map of Haiti!,
as the coloring of the map implies, eih?

So, two things:

1) I want to ask if it's possible to allow (and then persuade! :) users that
have declined to the license / CTs as well as those that are still undecided
and are leaning to not allowing to allow OSM to continue using their data
for specific areas (without them having to "fully accept" the change)?
I'm thinking humanitarian crisis areas but this could be extended in
whatever ways.
But to make my real point clear I want to re-articulate my thought:

This is, in some areas, a clear humanitarian issue and can be a matter of
life or death (as it has been in Haiti - and a number of other areas).

2) Big thanks to Ed Loach for the idea of contacting the undecided and Don
Campbell for keeping the thread floating (which is only when it really sunk
to my head). I'll definitely use this to try to persuade some decliners (but
only after I hopefully hear thoughts to the 1st point) ... and hope that we
have enough time to do this before any purging of data begins!

To conclude my post I want to warmly and deeply thank _everyone_ (regardless
of what you think of the license issue / CTs) who has been contributing to
OSM and creating this incredible project -- and changing the world while at
it! I've talked with so many people that have absolutely amazed and
incredibly thankful for the OSM community contribution in Haiti that I've
lost track a long ago. Most heart-warming have been those that have had a
more direct and "crucial" benefit from OSM (as in soon after the quake) but
there have been so many others ranging from business owners who can to
private people who can -- first time ever -- to give perfect directions to
exactly where they are; and all other kinds. It's really uplifting.

And that in mind, please let's not allow minor -- or even major! --
differences in our opinions to harm the thing that I understand really at
the bottom of things unites us: the desire will to create an (as) Open (as
possible) map of the world.

Cheers from Haiti,
-Jaakko
http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh
--
jaakko at helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154 *
http://go.hel.cc/MyProfile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/5bbd607a/attachment-0001.html>
80n
2011-06-22 18:18:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com <
Post by Jaakko Helleranta.com
As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the
world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements.
That's why fosm.org exists. No data will get deleted. It will continue
to exist and can be updated at fosm.org.

If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you are
now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data than OSM already and
will continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new updates
directly.

OSM is not trying to punish anyone, its just that the community thinks that
less data under a different license is better for them. If you are happy
with the way things were then you don't have to lose anything, just change
your URL from osm.org to fosm.org.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/fb08b0dc/attachment.html>
SteveC
2011-06-22 18:31:47 UTC
Permalink
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?

Steve
As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements.
That's why fosm.org exists. No data will get deleted. It will continue to exist and can be updated at fosm.org.
If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you are now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data than OSM already and will continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new updates directly.
OSM is not trying to punish anyone, its just that the community thinks that less data under a different license is better for them. If you are happy with the way things were then you don't have to lose anything, just change your URL from osm.org to fosm.org.
80n
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Steve

stevecoast.com
Fabio Alessandro Locati
2011-06-22 18:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveC
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
I think they will stop it as soon as last CC dump is released

Fabio
80n
2011-06-22 19:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveC
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue
to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it.
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it
will be a long time yet.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/ed2412cf/attachment.html>
Steve Coast
2011-06-22 19:54:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional)
continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
1. fosm.org <http://fosm.org> is functional, you should try it.
I did. Perhaps we use different meanings for 'functional'. OSM shows you
maps for example. Fosm has a link to 'maps' which 404s.
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan
suggests it will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop
using OSM then when it occurs.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/a82d15c6/attachment.html>
Mike Dupont
2011-06-22 20:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by 80n
**
Post by SteveC
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue
to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it.
I did. Perhaps we use different meanings for 'functional'. OSM shows you
maps for example. Fosm has a link to 'maps' which 404s.
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
Post by 80n
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests
it will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop
using OSM then when it occurs.
Steve
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org
flossal.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/f621cb8b/attachment.html>
ThomasB
2011-06-22 20:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
do you mean the "picture coming soon" at zoom level 7 or 8? Are you really
planing to use pre-rendered tiles at archive.org for the whole world,
updated by a handful local computers a la BOINC forever?


--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6506004.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
SomeoneElse
2011-06-23 00:15:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being
functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are
incompatible?
1. fosm.org <http://fosm.org> is functional, you should try it.
I did. Perhaps we use different meanings for 'functional'. OSM
shows you maps for example. Fosm has a link to 'maps' which 404s.
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
Odd. zoom in to the dizzy heights of 16 (in Denmark WA FWIW) and you
get "picture coming soon". I picked Denmark because it's somewhere
that I've been and added stuff (to OSM, but would also like to see the
likes of FOSM using that same data too). Competion is good. It seems a
bit of a shame that the forkers are being let down by a rather poor
implementation (or so it seems) so far.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110623/b40b8fc6/attachment.html>
Frederik Ramm
2011-06-23 00:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by SomeoneElse
Odd. zoom in to the dizzy heights of 16 (in Denmark WA FWIW) and you
get "picture coming soon". I picked Denmark because it's somewhere
that I've been and added stuff (to OSM, but would also like to see the
likes of FOSM using that same data too). Competion is good. It seems a
bit of a shame that the forkers are being let down by a rather poor
implementation (or so it seems) so far.
Just be patient. The world on zoom level 18 has 100 billion tiles with
an estimated data volume of 450 terabytes. It takes a while to upload
them all to archive.org!

Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33"
Mike Dupont
2011-06-23 10:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Odd. zoom in to the dizzy heights of 16 (in Denmark WA FWIW) and you get
"picture coming soon". I picked Denmark because it's somewhere that I've
been and added stuff (to OSM, but would also like to see the likes of FOSM
using that same data too). Competion is good. It seems a bit of a shame
that the forkers are being let down by a rather poor implementation (or so
it seems) so far.
Just be patient. The world on zoom level 18 has 100 billion tiles with an
estimated data volume of 450 terabytes. It takes a while to upload them all
to archive.org!
There is no need to render oceans and deserts at high resolution, but cities
and interesting places. We will be rendering and uploading as people are
donating resources, if you want your stuff rendered, then you can also help
find some computers to help do it.

mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110623/a3fc1494/attachment.html>
Steve Doerr
2011-06-23 08:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
--
Steve
John Smith
2011-06-23 09:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Doerr
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
that doesn't display.
Ed Loach
2011-06-23 09:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
that doesn't display.
I'm no expert, but see
http://dev.openlayers.org/docs/files/OpenLayers/Control/Attribution-
js.html
your map seems to be lacking one in the "var map" declaration.

Ed
Richard Fairhurst
2011-06-23 11:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
that doesn't display.
You probably need a DG file instead.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6507935.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
John Smith
2011-06-23 10:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Doerr
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution.
Matt Williams
2011-06-23 11:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Steve Doerr
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution.
No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright & License' link in the sidebar on the left.
--
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com
John Smith
2011-06-23 11:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Williams
No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright & License' link in the sidebar on the left.
Nice and obscure...
Tobias Knerr
2011-06-23 11:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Steve Doerr
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution.
No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the "Copyright &
License" link.

The "Demo archive.org Tile Hosting" map, on the other hand, fails to
attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates
the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs
to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions.

-- Tobias Knerr
John Smith
2011-06-23 11:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobias Knerr
No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the "Copyright &
License" link.
Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
the bottom right side of the map.
Post by Tobias Knerr
The "Demo archive.org Tile Hosting" map, on the other hand, fails to
attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates
the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs
to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions.
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Tobias Knerr
2011-06-23 11:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Tobias Knerr
No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the "Copyright &
License" link.
Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
the bottom right side of the map.
Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list
attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices
(because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that
use multiple sources (because in these cases, even a large screen would
get cluttered with legalese). Static maps (e.g. map images in Wikipedia)
also frequently use different attribution mechanisms.
Post by John Smith
Post by Tobias Knerr
The "Demo archive.org Tile Hosting" map, on the other hand, fails to
attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates
the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs
to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions.
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:

"If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...]. Such
credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however,
that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum
such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit
appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable
authorship credit."

-- Tobias Knerr
John Smith
2011-06-23 11:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobias Knerr
Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list
attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices
(because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that
use multiple sources (because in these cases, even a large screen would
get cluttered with legalese). Static maps (e.g. map images in Wikipedia)
also frequently use different attribution mechanisms.
Thanks for the tip, I'm sure someone else is bound to put an obscure
link on their website and you'll probably hound them about it as well.
Post by Tobias Knerr
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those
on mobile phones.
Tobias Knerr
2011-06-23 15:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Tobias Knerr
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those
on mobile phones.
Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting
only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under
the rug is not legal.

-- Tobias Knerr
John Smith
2011-06-23 15:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobias Knerr
Post by John Smith
Post by Tobias Knerr
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those
on mobile phones.
Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting
only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under
the rug is not legal.
OSM-F doesn't put *ALL* attribution elsewhere.
Tobias Knerr
2011-06-23 16:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Tobias Knerr
Post by John Smith
Post by Tobias Knerr
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those
on mobile phones.
Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting
only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under
the rug is not legal.
OSM-F doesn't put *ALL* attribution elsewhere.
There are two plausible legal interpretations:
- the "original author" is "OpenStreetMap"
- the "original author" are a lot of individuals

No matter which interpretation you choose, your website does not provide
the legally required attribution for either interpretation.

I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you.

-- Tobias Knerr
John Smith
2011-06-23 16:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobias Knerr
- the "original author" is "OpenStreetMap"
- the "original author" are a lot of individuals
You left off companies that have donated data.
Post by Tobias Knerr
No matter which interpretation you choose, your website does not provide
the legally required attribution for either interpretation.
Well, OSM-F may facilitate, but they didn't create the data, and I
don't plan to bother listing 1,000s of individual authors either.
Post by Tobias Knerr
I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you.
Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do...
Tobias Knerr
2011-06-23 16:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Tobias Knerr
I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you.
Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do...
No, it's a case of "don't feed the troll".

If someone else still reads this thread and is honestly interested in
related legal matters, I suggest to open a thread on legal-talk for this
purpose. I'll happily discuss the topic with anyone who is genuinely
curious about it.

-- Tobias Knerr
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2011-06-23 18:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobias Knerr
"If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...].
-- Tobias Knerr
I understand from this that the individual contributor could ask to be
mentioned, but OSM is not "the Original Author", it is no author at
all, osm/osmf is the publisher.

cheers,
Martin
Tobias Knerr
2011-06-23 21:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
Post by Tobias Knerr
"If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...].
I understand from this that the individual contributor could ask to be
mentioned, but OSM is not "the Original Author", it is no author at
all, osm/osmf is the publisher.
If you want to be precise, you would of course provide attribution to
the "OpenStreetMap contributors", as recommended by the Copyright &
License section on osm.org. In my opinion, however, it's clear that
"OpenStreetMap" refers collectively to the OpenStreetMap community.

Until now, OSMF relied on the assumption that the contributors
implicitly agree with this style of giving credit to them. For those who
have already signed the CT, attribution has now been explicitly regulated.

-- Tobias Knerr
Robert Scott
2011-06-23 11:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.


robert.
John Smith
2011-06-23 11:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott
Post by John Smith
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM...
Robert Scott
2011-06-23 14:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Robert Scott
Post by John Smith
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM...
Sorry, my bad, 99.999999%.


robert.
Frederik Ramm
2011-06-23 11:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Robert Scott
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I understand that it is also possible to upload original content to
fosm.org, so you're probalby talking about less than 100%. 99.999% or so ;)

Bye
Frederik
John Smith
2011-06-23 12:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott
Post by John Smith
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any
kind of attribution, yet you expect others to more prominently
attribute OSM-F, which only a very small percentage if that, of the
content can be contributed from OSM-F members.

So one rule for OSM-F, and another for everyone else, in other words
either eat your own dog food, otherwise why should anyone else?
Robert Scott
2011-06-23 15:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Robert Scott
Post by John Smith
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any
kind of attribution, yet you expect others to more prominently
attribute OSM-F, which only a very small percentage if that, of the
content can be contributed from OSM-F members.
_What_?

I can't find a single shred of logic here.

Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to OpenStreetMap.

I'm usually the first person to laugh at something, but I'm finding it hard to find anything amusing there. Only perhaps that we're all wasting time dealing with someone who is clearly out of touch with reality.


robert.
John Smith
2011-06-23 15:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott
Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to OpenStreetMap.
For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who
operates the website and what not, as for flags how about pitching a
couple for companies either giving away data or giving away aerial
imagery that can be derived from.

None of which, not even contributors, get a mention where most maps
attribute the companies that supplied data etc.
Robert Scott
2011-06-23 15:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Robert Scott
Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to OpenStreetMap.
For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who
operates the website and what not, as for flags how about pitching a
couple for companies either giving away data or giving away aerial
imagery that can be derived from.
None of which, not even contributors, get a mention where most maps
attribute the companies that supplied data etc.
So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your point?

That not all people who contributed that data agree to the odbl? No, but the vast majority of active mappers did. But they _all_ submitted it to a site under the understanding of a license that would attribute that work to "OpenStreetMap". I didn't think that was even being called into question. Or will you just call anything into question to keep the disruption going?

More importantly, if "f"osm is so much more legitimate and important than OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on "our" list?


robert.
John Smith
2011-06-23 15:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott
So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your point?
My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even
OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own contributors, nor make it easy
for people to find it without it being pointed out.
Post by Robert Scott
That not all people who contributed that data agree to the odbl? No, but the vast majority of active mappers did. But they _all_ submitted it to a site under the understanding of a license that would attribute that work to "OpenStreetMap". I didn't think that was even being called into question. Or will you just call anything into question to keep the disruption going?
You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I
attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources.
Post by Robert Scott
More importantly, if "f"osm is so much more legitimate and important than OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on "our" list?
You're the one making a big song and dance about things.
Mike Dupont
2011-06-23 20:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I
attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources.
+1 there is a chain of attribution. All the data is available, fosm includes
osm data so it should be possible for people to find it.
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org
flossal.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110623/36871064/attachment.html>
Robert Scott
2011-06-23 22:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Robert Scott
More importantly, if "f"osm is so much more legitimate and important than OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on "our" list?
You're the one making a big song and dance about things.
I wouldn't say I'm making a song and dance about anything - I've managed to totally ignore all your licensing nonsense for a couple of years now, and I think my only replies on the subject have been in the last ten (?) hours.

I personally don't give a hoot what your fork does. I don't think many people do. People here tend to be more interested in, you know, making maps. I just find it hard to see some of the absolute falsisms that have been brought up go by unchallenged.

No actually I think I may have replied to some of your stuff a while ago when you were supposedly initiating your fork. But that must have been over a year ago now, and instead you decided to hang around and hijack discussions for another year.

A year from now, will we still be having the same discussion do you think? I'm betting so.


robert.
Michael Collinson
2011-06-24 08:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Robert Scott
So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your point?
My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even
OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own contributors, nor make it easy
for people to find it without it being pointed out.
"4. At Your or the copyright owner?s option, OSMF agrees to attribute
You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a
web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution."

Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have
always felt that my contributions are more important then my name.

Mike
John Smith
2011-06-24 08:21:15 UTC
Permalink
"4. At Your or the copyright owner?s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution."
Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have
always felt that my contributions are more important then my name.
Is that page even linked to from the map itself?
Michael Collinson
2011-06-24 09:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
"4. At Your or the copyright owner?s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution."
Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have
always felt that my contributions are more important then my name.
Is that page even linked to from the map itself?
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which
is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested
appropriate changes to the "Copyright and License" page.

Mike
John Smith
2011-06-24 09:35:49 UTC
Permalink
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and
every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the
important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes
to the "Copyright and License" page.
But that still falls short of what OSM-F is telling everyone else, but
failing to do itself on it's own map, it doesn't make it immediately
obvious where attribution can be found to end users.

David Murn
2011-06-23 18:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Steve Doerr
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution.
I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need
attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner.

I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name
'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page.

David
John Smith
2011-06-23 18:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Murn
I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need
attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner.
I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name
'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page.
As I pointed out before, OSM-F isn't the content creator, they merely
facilitate, so the attribution should be for OSM Contributors, not
OSM-F...
Mike Dupont
2011-06-23 11:09:41 UTC
Permalink
The license on archive.org and all metadata is in a standard place,
http://www.archive.org/details/SharedMap2

It can be updated at any time, seems that the sources are not stated.

mike
Post by Mike Dupont
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/**download/SharedMap2/index.html<http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html>
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
--
Steve
______________________________**_________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org
flossal.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110623/47714a42/attachment.html>
80n
2011-06-22 20:26:45 UTC
Permalink
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it
Post by 80n
will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop
using OSM then when it occurs.
Timing is very relevant. Unless OSM gathers the courage to delete all
non-ODbL licensed content then it will be a very long time before the final
switchover. What is the point of all this nonsense if you don't ever
actually get to do it?
Post by 80n
From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org. The mass deletions in
OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/f3ade9ff/attachment.html>
ThomasB
2011-06-22 20:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by 80n
From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org.
quite obvious
Loading Image...

You may be a bit confused with the scales.

--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6506030.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Steve Coast
2011-06-22 20:38:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan
suggests it will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to
stop using OSM then when it occurs.
Timing is very relevant. Unless OSM gathers the courage to delete all
non-ODbL licensed content then it will be a very long time before the
final switchover. What is the point of all this nonsense if you don't
ever actually get to do it?
Okay, I take this as you won't actually answer the question.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/15531112/attachment.html>
80n
2011-06-22 20:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by 80n
**
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests
it will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop
using OSM then when it occurs.
Timing is very relevant. Unless OSM gathers the courage to delete all
non-ODbL licensed content then it will be a very long time before the final
switchover. What is the point of all this nonsense if you don't ever
actually get to do it?
Okay, I take this as you won't actually answer the question.
A: We will definitely stop using OSM as soon as OSM switches to ODbL for
it's output.
Q: Now when will that be?

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/48f904fa/attachment.html>
Steve Coast
2011-06-22 20:49:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current
plan suggests it will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll
have to stop using OSM then when it occurs.
Timing is very relevant. Unless OSM gathers the courage to
delete all non-ODbL licensed content then it will be a very long
time before the final switchover. What is the point of all this
nonsense if you don't ever actually get to do it?
Okay, I take this as you won't actually answer the question.
A: We will definitely stop using OSM as soon as OSM switches to ODbL
for it's output.
Thanks
Q: Now when will that be?
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to give
you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.

Steve




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/7b2184b6/attachment-0001.html>
David Murn
2011-06-22 23:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Coast
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to
give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
Such a pity you dont extend the same feelings to those 'yes guys' who
wish to change their acceptance. Except that changing from no to yes is
generally upto the mapper, those who wish to change the other way are
trying to protect themselves and the OSM project from liability. Surely
with the whole purpose of the licence change being to purge any
non-compatible data, these requests should be taken seriously, not in
the way they generally have been, with refusal.

David
john whelan
2011-06-22 23:35:21 UTC
Permalink
I absolutely agree.

Cheerio John
Post by David Murn
Post by Steve Coast
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to
give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
Such a pity you dont extend the same feelings to those 'yes guys' who
wish to change their acceptance. Except that changing from no to yes is
generally upto the mapper, those who wish to change the other way are
trying to protect themselves and the OSM project from liability. Surely
with the whole purpose of the licence change being to purge any
non-compatible data, these requests should be taken seriously, not in
the way they generally have been, with refusal.
David
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/fe421e02/attachment.html>
Steve Coast
2011-06-22 23:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Why do you feel you have a liability?

Steve
Post by David Murn
Post by Steve Coast
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to
give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
Such a pity you dont extend the same feelings to those 'yes guys' who
wish to change their acceptance. Except that changing from no to yes is
generally upto the mapper, those who wish to change the other way are
trying to protect themselves and the OSM project from liability. Surely
with the whole purpose of the licence change being to purge any
non-compatible data, these requests should be taken seriously, not in
the way they generally have been, with refusal.
David
Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
2011-06-23 11:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Coast
Post by 80n
A: We will definitely stop using OSM as soon as OSM switches to ODbL
for it's output.
Q: Now when will that be?
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to give
you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
As I understand it, you can now only contribute to OSM if you have accepted
the new CTs?
Thus all edits from this point onwards are made by people happy to have
their work under ODbL?

So in theory, while in this interim stage, we could stop providing any new
data as CC-by-SA and instead offer a frozen CC-by-SA planet dump, with all
work since that freeze available as an additional ODbL "diff"?


--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508023.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Frederik Ramm
2011-06-23 11:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
So in theory, while in this interim stage, we could stop providing any new
data as CC-by-SA and instead offer a frozen CC-by-SA planet dump, with all
work since that freeze available as an additional ODbL "diff"?
Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make
your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;)

Bye
Frederik
Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
2011-06-23 12:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederik Ramm
Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make
your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;)
Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to
know! :)

But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
Post by Frederik Ramm
From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org. The mass deletions in
OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind.
But only because fosm can currently stay in sync with OSM and still claim
CC-by-SA on updates that are made under the new CTs by contributors that
agree with the move to ODbL.

--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508098.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
John Smith
2011-06-23 12:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
Erm how is this any better than companies sharing ODBL data and
contributions either being exempt from sharing back or not being
accepted because it isn't allowed by the CTs?

Or how many people want OSM-F to run a PD project.
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
2011-06-23 12:42:43 UTC
Permalink
But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a >CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
The community has always been clear that the continuation of OSM
with with a new ODBL is a legal way of forking the project.
Just as legal as continuing OSM with CC-BY-SA. After all
planet dumps have been made available for that, as well as diffs. That
is also a majority decision.

The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it.

So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA,
in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community)
are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community.

That is an odd way of saying the the majority is always right, and if wrong
they are right anyway ! And history has shown us and shows us every day
again where that opinon can lead to.




Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc



g.gremmen at cetest.nl
www.cetest.nl

Kiotoweg 363
3047 BG Rotterdam
T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953

? Before printing, think about the environment.



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Graham Stewart (GrahamS) [mailto:graham at dalmuti.net]
Verzonden: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:20 PM
Aan: talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make
your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;)
Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to
know! :)

But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org. The mass deletions in
OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind.
But only because fosm can currently stay in sync with OSM and still claim
CC-by-SA on updates that are made under the new CTs by contributors that
agree with the move to ODbL.

--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508098.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
2011-06-23 12:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it.
....
That is an odd way of saying the the majority is always right, and if wrong
they are right anyway ! And history has shown us and shows us every day
again where that opinon can lead to.
To quote a wiser man than me:
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of
sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed,
it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all
those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508198.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Frederik Ramm
2011-06-23 13:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

On 06/23/2011 02:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen >
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it.
That's half as bad. Imagine that happening after country-wide
elections... some fork taking away the name and all the resources. Rotten!

Bye
Frederik
Eugene Alvin Villar
2011-06-23 14:09:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it.
So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA,
in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community)
are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community.
Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new
country with a new name?
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
2011-06-23 15:22:28 UTC
Permalink
@Eugene

Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork

@Graham,
My reaction was just against the accusation of dividing the community
and create a competitor. Forking is a fundamental right in Open Stuff,
and therefore not te be criticized in the way you do.

The fact is that FOSM.ORG look more like OSM then OSM , as the latter
excluded communitymembers that won't accept a majority choice.
OSM voluntarily and willfully took the risk that some of us
might start a fork.
One of the founding piles under Open Software and Open Data.
OSM has the right to change their license, especially when based
on a majority acceptance (not to be called a vote) but the *changing
party* is the
fork, not the continuing "half". End the fork took the assets .... boooh

Gert
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it.
So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under
CC-BY_SA,
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community)
are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community.
Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new
country with a new name?
Robert Scott
2011-06-23 15:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork
Funny you should bring this up - I was going to talk about software forks, but thought better of it.

By your definition, Linux gets forked thousands of times a day, so surely must be a project in dire straits.

Yet people somehow still know what "Linux" is and where to get it, because it tends to center itself around where all the competent people are.
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
@Graham,
My reaction was just against the accusation of dividing the community
and create a competitor. Forking is a fundamental right in Open Stuff,
and therefore not te be criticized in the way you do.
The fact is that FOSM.ORG look more like OSM then OSM , as the latter
excluded communitymembers that won't accept a majority choice.
OSM voluntarily and willfully took the risk that some of us
might start a fork.
One of the founding piles under Open Software and Open Data.
OSM has the right to change their license, especially when based
on a majority acceptance (not to be called a vote) but the *changing
party* is the
fork, not the continuing "half". End the fork took the assets .... boooh
So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets a veto on everything. Right?


robert.
John Smith
2011-06-23 15:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott
So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets a veto on everything. Right?
Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals
by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the
sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to
sign your rights away are usually typical of commercial projects, not
open source ones.

It's rare for projects to switch licenses once they've become
established, otherwise you risk a fork splitting what community there
is up.
Eugene Alvin Villar
2011-06-23 16:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals
by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the
sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to
sign your rights away are usually typical of commercial projects, not
open source ones.
1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF
asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software
projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.)

2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require you to sign away your rights.
You just give OSMF a very broad license grant, just like what the
Apache Software Foundation asks of its contributors.

3. Commercial projects are not necessarily bad things either.
Comparing OSMF to a commercial entity (but the comparison is not
correct, see #2 above) like it's a bad thing doesn't make sense.
John Smith
2011-06-23 16:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF
asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software
projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.)
2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require you to sign away your rights.
You just give OSMF a very broad license grant, just like what the
Apache Software Foundation asks of its contributors.
Those points aside, the license is usually fixed, some people who
volunteer their free time, only do so based on a specific license, or
similar.

Some people prefer GPL some prefer BSD, but the 2 usually don't mix
well because they have different ideals or goals.
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
3. Commercial projects are not necessarily bad things either.
Comparing OSMF to a commercial entity (but the comparison is not
correct, see #2 above) like it's a bad thing doesn't make sense.
I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with them, however I
don't usually like volunteering for large multinationals.
Stefan de Konink
2011-06-23 16:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott
Yet people somehow still know what "Linux" is and where to get it,
because it tends to center itself around where all the competent
people are.
Now think this in BSD perspective. And ask yourself how your above
statement applies.


Stefan
Eugene Alvin Villar
2011-06-23 16:25:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork
OK, let's look for a software example.

The lead developers of the Amarok audio player software decided to
rewrite the software for version 2.0 going from version 1.4. This was
criticized by some other developers so they took the code base from
1.4 and created a "status quo" fork of Amarok (such as Pana and
Clementine). The "status quo" fork does not always have the right to
the servers or domain name or trademark/brand name simply because they
want to continue with the original code (or original license, or
original whatever). If the majority of supporters of a project agree
with the change then the project goes with the majority.

This is not a rotten thing, unlike what you declare.
David Murn
2011-06-23 18:38:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:22 +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork
Software forks are generally a bit different. Imagine if Linus
proposed to change the Linux kernel licence to BSD-style (but with a
caveat that he could change it again to anything he personally decides
at any time in the future), then emailing all contributors and asking
them to accept the new licence or their work will be reverted. Also
requiring all patches to be submitted through a website which only
allows submissions once you accept the new terms.

Say he then tells people all non-compliant code will be removed in 4-8
weeks unless they agree to the new licence, but says anyone is welcome
to continue using the existing code under the existing licence, Say if
it gets to the 8 week mark and he decides 'well 90% of people have
clicked the agree button, therefore Ill just assume the other 10% no
longer have email and would have said yes'.

Now, say half a dozen developers decided to take the GPL codebase, call
it FreeLinux and continue development, while encouraging anyone who ever
contributed to the project under GPL and wants to continue using that
licence, to come over to their project.

That situation is far more compatible with whats currently happening.

Im sure in that instance, you would support the continued codebase under
the licence youve used for many years, that is compatible with other
licences you use, and which wont have big chunks removed from it
sometime indefinitely in the near future.

Or would you blindly follow the 'official' codebase accepting the
decisions of the leaders without thinking for yourself?

David
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain
name and
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it.
So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under
CC-BY_SA,
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain
name and community)
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community.
Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new
country with a new name?
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Robert Kaiser
2011-06-23 18:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Murn
Now, say half a dozen developers decided to take the GPL codebase, call
it FreeLinux and continue development, while encouraging anyone who ever
contributed to the project under GPL and wants to continue using that
licence, to come over to their project.
If they wouldn't have an agreement with the Linux Foundation, they might
not be able to use the "Linux" trademark for it.

That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US
and that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its
data and provide it under PD myself.

Robert Kaiser
John Smith
2011-06-23 18:52:40 UTC
Permalink
That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and
that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and
provide it under PD myself.
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright,
and copyright law doesn't stipulate what form the maps have to be
stored under, and maps are deemed a creative enterprise.

If anything ODBL offers the easiest path way to PD data.
Robert Kaiser
2011-06-23 21:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and
that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and
provide it under PD myself.
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright,
and copyright law doesn't stipulate what form the maps have to be
stored under, and maps are deemed a creative enterprise.
Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion
that CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't
protected by US law. But right now, I'm bound by the rules of where I
live in anyhow, and here we have explicit database protection laws -
which still doesn't make CC-BY-SA be applicable to factual databases,
but unfortunately also doesn't make them just usable under PD. And, of
course, I'd need to let this prove by yet another lawyer, as IANAL and
those in reign around here (if there are any) seem to disagree.

Robert Kaiser
John Smith
2011-06-24 03:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that
Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion.
CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by
Which is a false premise, map data isn't factual data and copyright on
maps doesn't care if they are stored in a database or in print form,
making maps takes creative effort, take 10 different mappers and give
them the same sources and you will end up with different end results.
CC-BY-SA be applicable to factual databases, but unfortunately also doesn't
We're not dealing with a factual database, we're dealing with map data
that just happens to be stored in DB form.
Richard Fairhurst
2011-06-23 21:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright
Um, no. The first thing to be protected by copyright was an Old Irish
psalter. Is and gabais Fergus d?ib daur m?r ro-bo? for l?r ind liss assa
fr?naib, etc.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6510149.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Nic Roets
2011-06-23 20:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Alvin Villar
Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new
country with a new name?
I don't think Gert should have used the word 'hijack'.

But I also don't know why you three compare the license change to
ordinary democratic processes. It's much closer to what's been
happening in the Arab States this year: People opposed to the license
change have been voicing their discontent for 2 years now. And Steve
and some other directors keep responding to it. So the basis for the
discontent must have merit.

And it's clogging up our main communications channel (talk).

A modern democratic government would have found a way to defuse the
situation long ago.
Richard Fairhurst
2011-06-23 21:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nic Roets
But I also don't know why you three compare the license change
to ordinary democratic processes. It's much closer to what's
been happening in the Arab States this year.
<ticks off 'Godwin' on the Hyperbole Bingo card>

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6510026.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Frederik Ramm
2011-06-23 21:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Nic,
Post by Nic Roets
A modern democratic government would have found a way to defuse the
situation long ago.
I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the
conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being
such an unstructured, little-governed project.

If this project were one with a strong leadership and a more rigid
structure - so, skip the whole "OMSF doesn't want to rule the project"
stuff and so on -, then that leadership could probably have pulled
through the license change in a more organised fashion, and even one
that is - or at least looks! - more "democratic". (I say "at least
looks" because I have seen the inside of some such organisations and
generally you have a situation where the board decides what info goes
into the glossy membership magazine and what doesn't, so they usually
get whatever they want rubber-stamped by a majority.)

But even if we had such a more strictly organised project with a strong
leadership - something that I would oppose -, I don't really think that
this situation could be "defused" in any way. I mean, look at it - how
many people are making a fuss here? I think I count 6 or 7. Let's be
generous and say there are 20. Could even the best, brightest, and most
professional OSMF board ever implement a license change process where we
would *not* have 20 people arguing bitterly and spreading/believing all
sorts of FUD? Considering human nature, would it really be possible?
Could one implement a process so even, so fair, so smooth, that you
would *not* have 20 people who claim that their voice hasn't been heard,
that everyone is making a big mistake, and that we're all doomed?

I'm not saying that perfection shouldn't be strived for, but in the end
you have to break some eggs to make an omelette, and I think on the
whole we're not doing too bad.

Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33"
Robert Kaiser
2011-06-23 21:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederik Ramm
I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the
conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being
such an unstructured, little-governed project.
Hey, I've been saying this for weeks! (Not in here, though...) ;-)

I indeed believe that all this chaotic divergence, bickering and bashing
of each other is mostly cause because nobody really dares to take a lead
in this project. And there are a lot of comments that accuse someone of
taking the lead (as it's natural within humans to search guidance from a
leader - as well as to oppose it), while everybody denies he leads
anything. It's a really strange dance, actually, but fun to view. :)

Robert Kaiser
Milo van der Linden
2011-06-23 21:17:12 UTC
Permalink
This discussion makes me sad.

My personal motivation in life is : everybody should live in freedom"
. Derived from this:

" alternatives are good, monopoly is bad"

fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of "marketing" to
do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken links, no
information about who initiated the fork or any insight about the who,
why and what looks to me like communicating with my bank over a
http-connection. It feels unsecure. Open some communication channels
and please grow to maturity.

osm; Keep up what your doing, but work on a open, clear and
respectfull approach towards individuals, community-members and
businesses. Stay away from the trolls

I am in no camp. I am me. I love the good openstreetmap brought to the
world, I love the HOT initiative and derivated humanitarian projects.
I feel blessed to be involved with a mapping project that gives people
everywhere, all over the world access to map data without
discrimination and with respect to their individuality.

And now I get the hell out of this discussion that is in my opinion
leading nowhere.
Mike Dupont
2011-06-24 05:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Milo van der Linden
fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of "marketing" to
do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken links, no
information about who initiated the fork or any insight about the who,
why and what looks to me like communicating with my bank over a
http-connection. It feels unsecure. Open some communication channels
and please grow to maturity.
I agree that it is not pretty, that there is a lot of work to do, and not
enough people to do it,

but being locked out of osm is also not pretty.

Back to the topic of lost data, at least we have the data and are trying to
build the tools to preserve it. I hope that once the bridge is rebuilt
between cc-by-sa 4.0 and osm they will accept our contributions back in.

We will see, but I am not in a rush to make pretty webpages, I am spending
my little free time on building tools and code to allow people to map easier
and publish the maps on their own. That is my personal goal, to increase
peoples personal freedom and to provide alternatives. It will take a while,
be patient.

The only reason why we are giving you an unfinished product now is for the
simple reason that it is on topic of data loss in the third world.

many people in the third world dont have time or resources to debate
licenses in English and read emails all day, they also gave us their data
and I intend on not deleting it.

I see this as a long term project, to be able to publish my own OSM maps or
edit a subset of the map without a central server, I have been working on
learning the technology and thinking about how to do this for a long time,
even before the license change I saw a problem in the monolithic
architecture of osm. But it will take a while to solve these perceived
problems.


mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110624/c843113c/attachment.html>
Thomas Davie
2011-06-24 07:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dupont
but being locked out of osm is also not pretty.
No one is locked out of OSM. You are free to contribute under the CTs, as you always have been.
Julio Costa Zambelli
2011-06-23 22:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nic Roets
It's much closer to what's been
There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM.

In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or
ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty
thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in
common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground
zero. We are all going to receive it, the same for all of his/her following
messages, at least till we run tired and unsubscribe from the list.

And most importantly, there is zero intention of repression/censorship (I
guess some of you will try to argue about this, but you all know that if
some censorship had been applied when it could have been done, this
discussion wouldn't be happening), so that one person can "shout" as much as
he/she wants to, for as long as he/she wants to (probably till the License
change is completed, so be prepared for many more messages).

Now, taking it back to the mailing list and people responding, I think that
many of us let Steve, Frederik, Richard and others do the job of answering
John, 80n, etc. because we don't have the time and energy to do it. Luckily
there is always people willing to do the hard work of pushing things
forward.

Cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110623/ee0029ee/attachment-0001.html>
John Smith
2011-06-24 03:58:40 UTC
Permalink
On 24 June 2011 08:49, Julio Costa Zambelli
Post by Julio Costa Zambelli
Post by Nic Roets
It's much closer to what's been
There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM.
In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or
ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty
thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in
common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground
zero. We are all going to receive it, the same for all of his/her following
messages, at least till we run tired and unsubscribe from the list.
And most importantly, there is zero intention of repression/censorship (I
guess some of you will try to argue about this, but you all know that if
some censorship had been applied when it could have been done, this
discussion wouldn't be happening), so that one person can "shout" as much as
he/she wants to, for as long as he/she wants to (probably till the License
change is completed, so be prepared for many more messages).
Now, taking it back to the mailing list and people responding, I think that
many of us let Steve, Frederik, Richard and others do the job of answering
John, 80n, etc. because we don't have the time and energy to do it. Luckily
there is always people willing to do the hard work of pushing things
So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
Julio Costa Zambelli
2011-06-24 04:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110624/0006d279/attachment-0001.html>
John Smith
2011-06-24 04:39:06 UTC
Permalink
On 24 June 2011 14:32, Julio Costa Zambelli
Post by Julio Costa Zambelli
Post by John Smith
So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me...
You claimed I was making false claims without actually mentioning one of them.
Nic Roets
2011-06-24 07:28:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli
Post by Julio Costa Zambelli
Post by Nic Roets
It's much closer to what's been
There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM.
In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or
ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty
thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in
common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground
zero.
Basically all you are saying is that mailing lists are a bad way to
measure support. And I agree 100%.

Can you can prove that the average contributor thinks that the average
contributor thinks that the benefits* of the ODbL exceeds the cost of
implementing it** ? Then I will personally start telling people that
they are in the minority and should go away.

*: Looking at whitehouse.gov, the software on my phone etc, I can't
see a single thing that will change (either positive or negative).

**: To implement it, we will have to delete some data. We are
bothering people by sending them email and if they do not respond, we
use facebook etc.
Ed Loach
2011-06-24 08:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nic Roets
Basically all you are saying is that mailing lists are a bad way to
measure support. And I agree 100%.
Can you prove that the average contributor thinks that the
benefits* of the ODbL exceeds the cost of
implementing it** ? Then I will personally start telling people that
they are in the minority and should go away.
*: Looking at whitehouse.gov, the software on my phone etc, I
can't
Post by Nic Roets
see a single thing that will change (either positive or negative).
**: To implement it, we will have to delete some data. We are
bothering people by sending them email and if they do not respond,
we use facebook etc.
I doubt there are any average contributors on this list. I won't be
staying much longer since my return the other day because there has
been very little worth reading (perhaps even including this message
I'm sending), and too much that wasn't that I regret wasting my time
reading.

But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are
- is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell
they will need to contact all the contributors or themselves risk
data loss. It would perhaps be better to have their CTs now such
that it is clear that only active contributors will be contacted if
such a change is required and what majority will be required for a
change to happen. Perhaps this should be discussed on
talk-legal at fosm.org when they get as far as setting up email lists.
I'm also curious who counts as the contributor for all the stuff
imported from OSM; presumably it counts as a single contributor's
imports.

Anyway, as this process has taken about 5 years so far I am glad it
is reaching the end at last, and a small loss of data which with the
rapid growth in the number of contributors should take little time
to replace. Almost all of us here joined the project after it was
clear that an attribution sharealike licence applied to our
contributions, and now there is such a licence that covers the data,
and CTs that make any future move from say ODBL 1 to ODBL2 less
painful, that can only be a good thing.

Oh, and another added benefit is that once we reach phase 5 I can
probably come back on various OSM related email lists without all
threads degenerating into license debates.

Ed
John Smith
2011-06-24 08:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Loach
But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are
- is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

Section 4 part b

"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this
License, a later version of this License with the same License
Elements as this License"
80n
2011-06-24 09:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Loach
But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are
- is there a fosmf?)
There is no fosmf, and I rather hope there never will be.
Post by Ed Loach
seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell
they will need to contact all the contributors or themselves risk
data loss.
CC-BY-SA 2.0 already has an upgrade clause and there's no intention of ever
changing the license. If it was every necessary it would be done the right
way, by forking the project. And anyone is free to do that at any time...
Post by Ed Loach
It would perhaps be better to have their CTs now such
that it is clear that only active contributors will be contacted if
such a change is required and what majority will be required for a
change to happen. Perhaps this should be discussed on
talk-legal at fosm.org when they get as far as setting up email lists.
Since fosm.org is not about forking the community, only the license, I very
much doubt that we'll need one of those. And I very much doubt that we'll
have anything to talk about that isn't also directly applicable to OSM
(tagging, mapping parties, imagery etc).
Post by Ed Loach
I'm also curious who counts as the contributor for all the stuff
imported from OSM; presumably it counts as a single contributor's
imports.
No, the contributor is the person who owns the copyright. That's you for
your contributions.
Post by Ed Loach
Anyway, as this process has taken about 5 years so far I am glad it
is reaching the end at last, and a small loss of data which with the
rapid growth in the number of contributors should take little time
to replace.
If only...
Post by Ed Loach
Almost all of us here joined the project after it was
clear that an attribution sharealike licence applied to our
contributions, and now there is such a licence that covers the data,
and CTs that make any future move from say ODBL 1 to ODBL2 less
painful, that can only be a good thing.
Oh, and another added benefit is that once we reach phase 5 I can
probably come back on various OSM related email lists without all
threads degenerating into license debates.
That would be something positive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110624/9e0ca559/attachment.html>
Richard Fairhurst
2011-06-23 14:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Regards,
Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc
Hey, cool. This is fun. Can we all join in?

cheers
Richard Fairhurst, MA (Cantab)



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508428.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Florian Lohoff
2011-06-22 20:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by 80n
Post by SteveC
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue
to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it.
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it
will be a long time yet.
Which is a shame - The longer the period the more difficult it'll get to
sync osm and fosm as people start pushing changes in both areas - read -
multi master.

A couple days ago OSM (Or better the OSM Foundation) started to dislike my
contributions so i'd need to start contributing to fosm which in turn will
make it more difficult to take contributions from OSM.

The longer the OSM Foundation delays the deletions and relicensing the more
it hurts both projects.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
?F?r eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik ?ber das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die
Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Br?ckentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein
Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-gr?nen Regierung
beschlossen, kommt f?r die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.?
Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110622/a2f33d64/attachment.pgp>
Frederik Ramm
2011-06-22 19:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
That's why fosm.org <http://fosm.org> exists. No data will get
deleted. It will continue to exist and can be updated at fosm.org
<http://fosm.org>.
If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you
are now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data than OSM already
and will continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new
updates directly.
If someone is only worried about data being deleted, then they can
simply take the CC-BY-SA planet dump and run with it.

If someone doesn't want to go that "static" route because he wants to
further participate in the large community updating OSM's data, then
Fosm won't be any help after OSM changes its license.

Unless of course Fosm could somehow manage to persuade many people to
contribute to Fosm instead of OSM; which I assume is the basic message
in this post.

I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
Maker were to post a similar message. "Hey, don't like how things go in
OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved!"

Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33"
David Murn
2011-06-22 23:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frederik Ramm
I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
Maker were to post a similar message. "Hey, don't like how things go in
OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved!"
Except that

a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM
b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want
licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a
degraded map)
c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is.
fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the
time that OSM splits off with a new licence change. If you think of
fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues
solved', youre more on-track to the situation

The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm
and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that
the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has
had to be removed. Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map
maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is
seeing complete maps.

David
Steve Coast
2011-06-22 23:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only
available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else.
Post by David Murn
Post by Frederik Ramm
I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
Maker were to post a similar message. "Hey, don't like how things go in
OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved!"
Except that
a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM
b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want
licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a
degraded map)
c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is.
fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the
time that OSM splits off with a new licence change. If you think of
fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues
solved', youre more on-track to the situation
The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm
and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that
the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has
had to be removed. Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map
maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is
seeing complete maps.
David
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
David Murn
2011-06-23 00:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Coast
Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only
available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else.
Does the data exclusively available under the ODbL outweigh the data
exclusively available under CC? Since not even OSM uses the ODbL yet, I
find it totally amazing that any other entity would be.

Also..
Post by Steve Coast
Why do you feel you have a liability?
Because I have used data from a source which cannot be relicenced. Id
feel the same way if Id taken OSM data and put it into another external
project, which was then planning to change its licence and take the OSM
data along with it.

Personally, I dont have a liability as I was aware early enough that my
contributions couldnt be relicenced. Unfortunately some people have
accepted the CTS without fully understanding that they didnt have the
rights to relicence the data. The fact of having each individual user
accept contributor terms, means that effectively you have passed the
liability directly onto the user who contributed the 'offending' data
rather than the foundation who refuse to remove the data in the first
place.

David
Post by Steve Coast
Post by David Murn
Post by Frederik Ramm
I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
Maker were to post a similar message. "Hey, don't like how things go in
OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved!"
Except that
a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM
b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want
licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a
degraded map)
c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is.
fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the
time that OSM splits off with a new licence change. If you think of
fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues
solved', youre more on-track to the situation
The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm
and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that
the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has
had to be removed. Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map
maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is
seeing complete maps.
David
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Steve Coast
2011-06-23 20:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Murn
Post by Steve Coast
Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only
available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else.
Does the data exclusively available under the ODbL outweigh the data
exclusively available under CC? Since not even OSM uses the ODbL yet, I
find it totally amazing that any other entity would be.
I think you need to think about the data that OSM derives from, like
aerial imagery.
Post by David Murn
Also..
Post by Steve Coast
Why do you feel you have a liability?
Because I have used data from a source which cannot be relicenced. Id
feel the same way if Id taken OSM data and put it into another external
project, which was then planning to change its licence and take the OSM
data along with it.
Personally, I dont have a liability as I was aware early enough that my
contributions couldnt be relicenced. Unfortunately some people have
accepted the CTS without fully understanding that they didnt have the
rights to relicence the data. The fact of having each individual user
accept contributor terms, means that effectively you have passed the
liability directly onto the user who contributed the 'offending' data
rather than the foundation who refuse to remove the data in the first
place.
Do you have any legal opinion to support this?

Steve
Post by David Murn
David
Post by Steve Coast
Post by David Murn
Post by Frederik Ramm
I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
Maker were to post a similar message. "Hey, don't like how things go in
OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved!"
Except that
a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM
b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want
licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a
degraded map)
c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is.
fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the
time that OSM splits off with a new licence change. If you think of
fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues
solved', youre more on-track to the situation
The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm
and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that
the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has
had to be removed. Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map
maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is
seeing complete maps.
David
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Frederik Ramm
2011-06-22 23:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by David Murn
Except that
[...]

My argument rested on the potential consequences for OSM: Someone pops
up on an OSM list and says "why don't you all go elsewhere"?

For this argument, it doesn't matter if the other thing has the same
roots, the same technology, or the same general idea; the other thing
might be superior in every regard and *still* it have a bad taste to it
if the creators of the other were to cast their net on OSM mailing lists.
Post by David Murn
The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm
and theyll see one is a small subset of the other
Can you give a definition of "small subset"?
Post by David Murn
Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map
maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is
seeing complete maps.
Oh, I think it is perfectly ok to take a snapshot of all our tiles the
day before the changeover and make them available somewhere. In fact I
was thinking that OSM would do so themselves, maybe even offer old
CC-BY-SA tiles and new updated tiles as a choice on openstreetmap.org.
Of course if fosm.org does that already then maybe it is unnecessary to
do it twice.

I am not so much concerned about data at all; I am concerned about
community members and I would hate to see an effort to smear OSM's
reputation in order to get people to contribute to another,
incompatible project - whether that is Google Map Maker, or a superior
open source endeavour.

Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33"
Richard Fairhurst
2011-06-22 20:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaakko Helleranta.com
This may well be my first post to the talk list
Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.)
Post by Jaakko Helleranta.com
Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2
I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange,
too).
Don't get too disheartened.

To take your second point first, in my experience most people are actually
pretty amenable to being contacted. A lot will simply not have noticed the
original mail. Others may have seen it but not realised that it's really
something they need to respond to. Personal contact saying "hi, I'd really
like to keep your data" means a lot.

When you do manage to contact them, the 98.5% agree/1.5% split (of those
who've responded thus far) suggests that in most cases they'll be happy for
the data to continue through to ODbL+CT - so it'll probably be ok.

If not, as David Groom mentioned, the idea of allowing people to say "I
relicense these bits, but not those" was once mooted - along the lines of
what you suggested. There wasn't much take-up but I see no reason why it
couldn't be resurrected if really needed. It doesn't even need to be part of
the formal relicensing process: you or I or anyone could write a tool that
deleted a problematic object, and recreated it with a clean history, _if_
all the contributors gave their permission to the tool author (and
documented the permission). But I do genuinely think it won't be necessary:
most people are happy to click 'Agree' if you ask.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6505963.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Loading...