<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Simon Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">The ODbL is
very clear on what "Publicly" is:</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline;float:none">“Publicly” –
means to Persons other than You or under Your control by</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline;float:none">either more than 50% ownership or by
the power to direct their</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline;float:none">activities (such as contracting with
an independent consultant).</span></font></p>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline;float:none">No need to speculate
on that point.<br></span></font></blockquote><div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;display:inline" class="gmail_default">Plenty of edge cases remain ... e.g. if a personal work for only family, is it "public"? I don't own my mother or adult child 50%+ ... and my ability to direct their activities has proven limited. <br></div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline;float:none">
On the other hand, if they were using OSM data to trigger to
spawning in a specific locations it would still be rather open
if that is actually a use that is substantial. </span></font></blockquote><div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">If it's a critical function of the derived work, it's at least arguably "substantial". <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">PoGo without Pokemon spawning would be no fun at all.<br></div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline;float:none">Up to now I
haven't seen any evidence that couldn't be explained in numerous
other ways that they are really using OSM data.</span></font></blockquote></div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Agreed. Hence "Hypothetical" and other hedge words.<br><br>I joined this tread to discuss whether a Trap Close would be detectable, to see if the question is answerable. (Is the Poke-rookery named for the feature it is based upon?) <br></div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Since the # edits with Pokemon in the comment has dropped off sharply, people aren't being rewarded for doing it; so (at least) one of the following is true -<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(a) word has gotten out not to put Pokemon in the comment as we'll revert bogus updates easier that way;<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(b) the game has already been fixed to prevent cheating<br> * (which may mean delayed data hypothesis is intentionally true )<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(c) video's theory isn't true at all <br> (the announcement was either hoax or jumping to conclusions based on coincidence)<br>(d) delayed data hypothesis is approximately true *but not* by Niantic's direct intent <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> * co-causal: changes to reality induces convergent data changes. Maybe Google base maps get _some_ approved changes from _their_ (so-called) "community" eventually, but not coincident with ours (E.g., they got Sarah Long bridge closure before OSM since it was routing-urgent (i marked it impassable when it became routing urgent to me!), but we'll often get those footpaths and local pocket parks first since we our "approval process" is Admiral Grace M Hopper Approved.)<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> * indirect pipeline: or someone (internally or externally to Google) is filtering our subsets of our changesets into GM/GE inputs and relying upon (a) not "substantial" use &/or (b) not being noticed &/or (c) not caring <br><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">I think you and I are in general agreement that there is so far little to no evidence that anything much is happening, so we're just quibbling over hypothetical potential severity if it were (which would of course depend on exact particulars and require lawyers) and wondering aloud how/whether we could ever notice or prove it if so.<br><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Without specific evidence, on the Interwebs, the Bayesian Prior (default conclusion) should always be high confidence that<br> (c) "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" [1] <br>and low confidence otherwise; <br>with that as a Prior, the low&early peak and rapidly decreasing popularity of "Pokemon" change-set comments in last week increases the other alternatives somewhat (and the powerset elements likewise as they are NOT fully mutually exclusive) but doesn't actually degrade (c)'s likelihood much. I<br> <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">[1] <a href="http://m.xkcd.com/386/">http://m.xkcd.com/386/</a> <br></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Bill Ricker<br><a href="mailto:bill.n1vux@gmail.com" target="_blank">bill.n1vux@gmail.com</a><div><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux</a> <br></div></div></div>
</div></div>