OpenStreetMap
Due to the WIKI edit that declares the OdBL as passed by Fait Accompli, I am deleting all of my GPX [traces and] edits in protest.
I would rather map for an explicitly closed-source project such as Google MapMaker than be seen as participating in an organization that claims to be devoted to freedom of information while simultaneously stealing from its contributors.
讨论
Firefishy 于 2010年05月11日 23:06 的评论
DiverCTH,
I think you are refering to my wiki edit. I have now rephrased it a little better.
All contributors will still be asked if they accept ODbL.
The potential adoption of ODbL is far from 'Fait Accompli'.
What are you real issues with ODbL?
- Grant
Matt 于 2010年05月11日 23:31 的评论
why do you say that ODbL has been passed by "fait accompli"? the process of migrating was put to several votes, including OSMF members. at no point in the process will your data be "stolen", or released under anything other than the current CC-BY-SA license without your permission.
OSM is committed to freedom of information, that's exactly why we proposed moving to ODbL - because CC-BY-SA doesn't adequately protect the information we've all spent so long collecting.
Google's MapMaker has far more restrictive licensing terms than OSM under either CC-BY-SA or ODbL. see https://services.google.com/fb/forms/mapmakerdatadownload/ for details, but the gist of it is: you can only access and use MapMaker vector data if you're a non-profit, government or individual for non-profit, non-commercial purposes. you also can't use it to create services "similar" to those Google already offer, or to use it for real-time navigation. that doesn't sound devoted to freedom of information to me.
evolvedlight 于 2010年05月11日 23:47 的评论
And when you say delete all your GPX edits, you mean delete a massive river?
osm.org/?lat=35.10197&lon=-85.241509&zoom=18
That's incredibly childish. Vandalism, at the very least.
AndresFuentes 于 2010年05月11日 23:55 的评论
"Fait accompli" is to dramatic. But i don't like the ODBL either so I stopped helping OSM until the license issue gets resolved.
JohnSmith 于 2010年05月12日 00:20 的评论
I think you are completely over reacting, the intent behind ODBL is to cover data where copyright isn't enough, and shouldn't place any more or any less real restrictions on things than cc-by-sa already does.
The devil is in the details and I'd be interested to know specific concerns you have with ODBL, you only seem to be doing hand waving and making empty threats.
Harry Wood 于 2010年05月12日 00:23 的评论
Empty threats... and deleting whole rivers.
AndresFuentes you seem to joining in with spreading FUD, and yet you've been registered with OSM for a grand total of 6 days. Can I just point out that people have been slavishly working puzzling over the intricacies of the license change, for the past two years now. At some point it stops being "raising reasonable objections" and is just rude.
DiverCTH 于 2010年05月12日 01:00 的评论
I'm crossposting to talk-us@ and tagging@ but my issues can be boiled down to the OSMF's lack of transparency.
To answer evolvedlight's comment. I'm deleting the parts of the river that I personally hand-drew from the USGS Landsat and Yahoo imagery. If another user has touched them, I will leave them be. If you have a problem with this, feel free to redraw the areas - I was only up to Ziegler Bay (sp?).
JohnSmith 于 2010年05月12日 01:05 的评论
@DiverCTH discussion has been occurring on the legal mailing list, and for longer than you've been registered, not to mention ODBL isn't something OSM cooked up, the ODBL itself is the work of another group.
emj 于 2010年05月12日 01:07 的评论
Harry, I don't really understand that attitude of yours. ODBL has several issues that several people with a long history in OSM have put forward. What AndresFuentes says is exactly the same response I've gotten from several PD/SA fanatics and normal people, these are the people I can talk license issues with other people just give me blank stares.
Too big to fail is how I see the ODBL drama. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just bitter.
DiverCTH 于 2010年05月12日 03:07 的评论
emj - I'd say it's closer to Goldman-Sachs on the too-big-to-fail scale ;)
DiverCTH 于 2010年05月12日 03:40 的评论
@JohnSmith - my issues are with the process, not with the license. I realize that a lot of work has gone into getting the license right.
My biggest concern is the lack of transparency that seems to go hand-in-hand with the way the OSMF operates.
Matt 于 2010年05月12日 09:04 的评论
DiverCTH - you say there's a lack of transparency, yet every stage of this has been discussed (often ad-nauseam) on the legal and OSMF-member mailing lists, on the wiki, IRC, forums, and at last year's state of the map conference. the license working group has published all of their minutes and are contactable (legal@osmfoundation.org) by anyone to discuss issues. while you seem to have made up your mind, which is a shame, could you point out what in the process is not transparent so we can improve it, please?
Richard 于 2010年05月12日 09:15 的评论
> "My issues are with the process, not with the license."
I think that misses the point in an extraordinary fashion.
The process is driven by OSM users like you. There are no paid employees, no pressure groups. Just some volunteer mappers like Firefishy and Matt above who have, selflessly, given of their time to help resolve a situation that has dogged OSM since its very early days.
They are volunteers. Of course they don't do everything perfectly. But they are incredibly open and have been soliciting comments, and more volunteers, for years now. You could have helped at any time in the past few years. You could have stood for OSMF election (just as I did in 2007). If you don't like the process, you can join in and change it - rather than silently waiting until late in the day then suddenly saying "oh, I don't like this" and marching off.
ctheile 于 2010年05月12日 09:54 的评论
Hi guys
Sorry to get back to years of discussion. Just let me summarize my thoughts that i have since reading the license.
Mr. Coast has got a lot of venture capital from finance people. Good for him But now he is in dire need to boost the value of his company. While the old license could not really protect the products of cloudmade, the new one does. So his sales will be higher and the finance instututions will be happier.
My personal opinion is that this background also explains the difficulties of financing osm like wikipedia. Would IBM be willing to finance osm when they indirectly would finance cloudmade.
All this does not interfere with my interest and activity in osm. Coast and his friends have realized an incredible work until i could participate in the project.
But I understand everybody who is fearing to be used by that foundation. And I don't like when these people are attacked in that harsh manner by the foundation people.
Richard 于 2010年05月12日 10:03 的评论
I don't think that's the case.
ODbL might in some ways make life harder for CloudMade. Under CC-BY-SA, CloudMade doesn't have to publish the raw data (the source) for any derivative databases it makes. Under ODbL, it does.
I'm neither a "Foundation person" nor particularly a friend of Steve Coast's and I'm strongly in support of the new licence.
42429 于 2010年05月12日 10:53 的评论
On the one hand, I can completely understand your anger about a licence which was declared by some experts and which is difficult to understand. You may declare all YOUR edits as public domain like many other editors have done it before, so nobody can create a COPYRIGHT on them.
On the other hand, it doen't make sense to remove a very small part of the worldwide map. That is rather a damage for local residents and friends than for the OSM Foundation in London. Your parts of Tennessee River have been deleted and merged with other parts of Tennessee River, so they are not your unique edits any more. We are not removing parts of the map in order to tease the OSM foundation (as they would not even recognize it), but we are creating maps in order to show that independent mappers can do better.
JohnSmith 于 2010年05月12日 11:51 的评论
@ctheile can you please explain to me how the license change would benefit cloudmade, if anything I was under the impression that as Richard said it would possibly make life more difficult since copyright law alone may not work in the US and US companies potentially could use OSM data as much as they like without giving back.
amm 于 2010年05月12日 12:25 的评论
In some way, I am glad that your main concerns are with the process rather than the license it self. This is hopefully much easier to try and discuss any possible concerns and try and improve for the future.
Yes, I do think too not everything in the process and with communications has always gone as ideal as would have been nice, but it is very important to keep in mind that all the people involved in the process (apart from the professional copyright lawyers who wrote OdBL for the Open Knowledge Foundation), are volunteers, i.e. people like you and me who use their limited time to try and help the cause for better more open maps as well as they can.
And I do think they have done an incredible job in ensuring a good and workable license that corresponds as closely as possible to the current license as well as reflecting the current opinions of all mappers as much as is possible in a diverse group. As Matt has pointed out, they have repeatedly communicated it on various mailinglists, both high volumne general lists like talk, as well as more focused specialist lists such as legal-talk. Posted it on the forums, in irc on blogs and discussed it at length on the wiki. There have also been repeated calls for anyone willing to join the Licensing Working Group to do so to ensure the process is as inclusive and transparently as possible. But the task they try and accomplish, i.e. to get 200.000 people across the globe with hugely diverse backgrounds and interests to all agree to a single license, which unfortunately has been dictated by unworkability of the current license, is basically impossible. So please bear in mind when criticising the current process that some glitches are unfortunately inevitable and try and be as constructive as possible. Even professional politicians have often failed at communicating things much simpler than this.
That doesn't mean people shouldn't and won't continue to work hard on improving the communications process and ensure that any potential licensing change is as inclusive as possible.
ctheile 于 2010年05月12日 12:36 的评论
@JohnSmith Thats very easy: Under the old license a company has to share their products based on our data. With the new license the product totally in the possession of the company and can not legally be copied. The requirement of sharing the data is not hampering. Why would Cloudmade or Geofabrik use something else that their "own" servers to produce output.
Richard 于 2010年05月12日 13:13 的评论
ctheile: No, the product is not "totally in the possession of the company". You have to share the data. That is better for OSM, because it means OSM gets data which wouldn't have been made available under CC-BY-SA.
You do not have to share other aspects of the product which are not relevant to OSM. It might disappoint you if you want more share-alike products to be created in general, but that's not the aim of OSM.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 于 2010年05月12日 14:17 的评论
Richard: We probably have as many "aim[s] of OSM" as we have contributors. With the transition to the ODbL one of the byproducts of OSM, which is that if you make a rendering using our map data it has to be freely licensed too, is going away.
You and I may agree that that's a good thing. But contributors who've become accustomed to being able to survey data *and* be guaranteed to use any renderings of that data under the CC-BY-SA (as has been the case until now) might not like the new terms.
Richard 于 2010年05月12日 14:20 的评论
The aim of OSM is clearly expressed - on the wiki front page, the OSM Foundation site, and elsewhere - as creating and providing free geographic data.
JohnSmith 于 2010年05月12日 16:48 的评论
@Ævar I agree with Richard on this one, I was of the impression that the intent behind using cc-by-sa was to get changes to the raw data to be shared.
robert 于 2010年05月12日 20:07 的评论
Hey, if you're vandalizing the map (even if it's data you entered in the first place), your deletion changesets will simply be reverted.
emj 于 2010年05月12日 20:26 的评论
@Richard You mean where it says that street maps should be free for anyone that wants to use them. "OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them." as in Open Street Map.
@DiverCTH I agree that at least the voting process was like nothing I've ever seen. Most of the time how/when/why of voting is heavily regulated, it's not in OSM no clue why, maybe differences in culture.
JohnSmith 于 2010年05月12日 21:14 的评论
@emj And "streets" are the only things mapped in Open Street Map?
emj 于 2010年05月13日 11:51 的评论
I'm highlighting the fact that it says "map" just a few word after geodata. I know it's hard to express the importance that we have access to not only the map but all the data as well, but the current text is much more about the map than the database.
Richard 于 2010年05月13日 12:46 的评论
emj - yes, maps are free for anyone who wants them; we do that by providing the data. You can't make a map without data of any sort.