[OSM-legal-talk] OSMHQ (Open Street Map High Quality): Viable Alternative For The National Map Corps

Joseph Gentle josephg at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 00:33:09 BST 2008


I agree. Said sister project would have to ask Yahoo! for permission as
well. However, if they give access to OSM they should give access to a PD
version of OSM. Yahoo can do a lot more with the data a PD-OSM project
generates.

-J


On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Kari Pihkala <kari.pihkala at gmail.com> wrote:

> Even if a sister project would set up the same toolchain, the same editors,
> databases etc. on a PD license, the sister project would miss the Yahoo
> satellite images. What kind of agreement has been made with Yahoo and does
> it allow other similar projects to use the images?
>
> BR,
> Kari
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
>> > The last I'd heard on this sort of "extraction" is that it would be
>> > largely infeasible. The wiki has a bit of a thread on this:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Dual_licensing_idea
>> > , which links to discussion about "whose node" but there has also been
>> > uncertainty raised regarding not just editing nodes themselves but
>> > what those nodes are edited in relation.
>>
>> I personally think that this is taking things a bit too far; remember
>> that to earn rights to something that is created, your contribution must
>> be non-trivial. We must be very careful with these claims of "whose
>> node" etc., because they will work the other way round as well and I
>> would not be surprised if (for example) if you were to set very strict
>> rules you could find that half of OSM actually belongs to someone else
>> (for example, how exactly have the aerial images and/or old maps we use
>> been orthorectified?).
>>
>> > Has this been further discussed, perhaps off-list, and determined to
>> > be feasible after all? If not, it seems to me that "extraction" would
>> > be more trouble (legal and technical) than it'd be worth. Why not
>> > start a sister project with known pure PD sources and just edit from
>> > there?
>>
>> It wouldn't be too late to do that, but we'd have to think carefully how
>> the two projects could and should co-exist in the future. I.e. if I were
>> to add data to the PD project I would like to add it to OSM at the same
>> time, however if checking with OSM for duplicates will already bring on
>> the "whose node is it" fraction telling me that I have now infected the
>> PD version, that would then basically make it impossible for me to
>> contribute to both at the same time and I would have to make a choice,
>> which would be sad.
>>
>> Sure, it would be relatively easy to set up the same toolchain that OSM
>> has on a parallel infrastructure, using the same editors, databases,
>> renderers, just on a PD license. For the users it would be pretty
>> transparent, you could basically switch from PD to Copyleft any time,
>> using Copyleft where you just want to display something and using PD
>> when you want to make a derived work. But it is going to be difficult
>> for the editors.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20080905/ed8c242d/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list