[Osmf-talk] changeover date of account locking

Richard Weait richard at weait.com
Thu Sep 2 21:36:35 UTC 2010

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Sam Vekemans
<acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks,

You are welcome.

> It appears that the overall community is not given a choice,

Um, what?  Of course the overall community is given a choice.  Every
contributor individually has the option to proceed or not.  To accept
or decline.

[quotes from and re: implementation plan removed for space]

> Because the Foundation has NOT decided to start the technical work to
> publish the first ODbL-only database, since it is OBVIOUS that
> Australian data will be removed, alog with a (literally) untold amount
> of data.   And IMO it is most logical to create a new database. ..
> this way you can be %100 certain that all data in this database has
> foundation approval.

I don't follow you here.

Creating the ODbL database now would only have to be re-done as each
contributor accepts the license.  That's a lot of duplicated work.

Why would you believe that Australian data would have to be removed?
The OSMF board and LWG are reviewing terms for community members who
have requested clarifications.  LWG are in discussion with many data
providers around the world.

> So thats fine, I asked, you answered :)

Again, you are welcome.

[ ... ]
>  (Of course, since 'forking' is not
> permitted. ... and this makes sense)

Who doesn't permit forks?  Anybody can run their own parallel system
with OSM data, as long as they comply with their obligations in the
license, currently CC-By-SA.  I do this.  Many, many other individuals
and companies do this.  OSMF publishes diff files that make it easy to
update OSM data for your parallel implementation.  It's free and open
data, what makes you think forks aren't permitted?

> So my followup question is this.
> "Are users permitted to allow the copying of their edits (that they
> consider public domain) into another database?"

Current OSM contributors are contributing to a CC-By-SA OSM project.
Anybody may then have that data under the terms of CC-By-SA. As far as
I can see the "public domain" portion of your question is not
relevant, as OSM only publishes data under CC-By-SA currently.  If you
want to rephrase the question perhaps I'll give it another try.

> Or would that be considered 'spooning' which the Foundation considers
> 'Forking', which is fine also.    And that would just mean that any
> contributor who wants to work on another database needs to copy in
> their own GPS tracks and re-do the work, in a new database.

Users aren't tied to OpenStreetMap exclusively.  They can work on
other projects, even other map projects.  If you have your own GPS
track files which you have also contributed to OSM, they are still
your track files to do with as you wish.  If you didn't keep a copy,
you could download them from OSM and use them under CC-By-SA, because
you are using the OSM track file, even though you may have contributed

I expect that there will be a final CC-By-SA track file dump before
change over, so that you don't have to hassle with individually
downloading your files.  We haven't published track file dumps too
often in the past, as far as I recall.  But in the backup plan[1]
you'll see "At no point in the process will we delete data which
hasn't been made available."  So that suggests that the GPS data will
be available.  Of course contributors can choose privacy levels for
their GPS track files, so in some cases you may get points only, and
in others original files.

Best regards,

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list