[OSM-dev] A bit of developer philosophy...

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemeD.net
Fri Sep 26 10:15:34 BST 2008


Chris Browet wrote:

> I consider implementing KML import in Merkaartor.
> While it would be a perfectly legit feature as KML is a standard  
> (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kml), I also know that it  
> could be used to import copyright protected stuff into OSM, even by  
> mistake.
>
> Now I wonder if should feel morally bound by the use that people  
> could make of a feature I implement, or just consider that it is  
> their responsibility only (It's a bit like P2P, although not  
> hypocritical...).
>
> What do you think?

Personally I would be strongly against including such a feature at  
present. The vast majority of KML out there is Google-derived.

It is nominally "users' responsibility", you're right. But most users  
simply do not understand copyright and it is our responsibility, as  
editor authors, to make sure they are guided towards sensible actions  
and aware of the consequences of bad actions. If I put a big button  
in Potlatch that activated 'TRUNCATE TABLE ways;', with the text "Do  
not press this button" on it, I couldn't weasel out of my actions by  
saying "well, I told them not to".

Though TomH wouldn't deploy it anyway. I hope.

Actually, talk-de probably think Potlatch has that feature already.

Anyway.

If someone _has_ genuine, self-researched KML (why?), it's not much  
of a hurdle to use gpsbabel to convert it to GPX (cf other  
discussion ;) ). Their GPX will then fail because there are no  
timestamps, so they will look at our FAQ, find out why, and then  
realise the dangers of importing copyrighted data.

But if you offer an import option, you'll get people simply importing  
a big heap of KML they created with Google geodata because it's  
really easy and it simply hasn't entered their mind that there might  
be a problem. It _might_ be ok if you were to add a load of  
boilerplate explaining the risks, but (a) people won't read it, (b)  
good luck explaining the intricacies of derived works within the  
space of one dialogue box.

For me, the clincher is that (when it's misused) the offending author  
will just disappear, and some other poor sod is going to have to go  
back and remove all the copyrighted data. I would rather our mappers  
spent time creating new stuff than undoing other people's vandalism.


As a counterpoint, Frederik and I have recently corresponded about this:
http://www.peterdamen.com/GoogleWMS/

which - for the same reason - I think ought to be blacklisted, or  
disclaimered, or DDOSed, or taken outside and shot. It is, I believe,  
utterly fucking evil; and if Potlatch were ever to let you specify  
your own 900913 tile server, it would without doubt check for  
'maps.google' in the string and reject it if found. But Frederik  
disagrees strongly and believes the "users' responsibility" is the  
most important thing, and he can explain his side of the argument  
much more cogently than I could for him, so I shall now pass over the  
microphone and let him do so. [edit: just before sending this mail, I  
notice he has done so]

cheers
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20080926/35d3fbf3/attachment.html>


More information about the dev mailing list