[Osmf-talk] [talk-au] NearMap
acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com
Thu Sep 16 00:14:36 UTC 2010
Some datasets are ok to use, what the CT fails to mention is the fact
that the OSMF can made the decision on weather or not to accept a
Specifically because the humble contributor cannot guarantee that they
represent or have the exact 'direct permission' as it could have been
just a coffe chat "sure you can use it" (when the actual dataset
copyright holder doesnt fully understand the CT, nor has hired a lawer
to answer the question 'officially'.
You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder
(to the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements). You
represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant the
licence in Section 2 below and that such licence does not violate any
law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge, infringe
any third party’s rights. If You are not the copyright holder of the
Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission
from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence
However, if the OSMF authorizes a working group who can act on behalf
of the Foundation, they can approve of data sets, and directly do the
conversion, so then the overall community does not need to be
concerned. And just wait for the OSMF to announce that data is
available as small .osm files hosted on the osmf server so the
community can work at copying the data in.
Like many other datasets, we have direct permission to use it.
(Someone from NRCan gave direct permission and wants OSM to use the
map data) Plus the OSMF voted in favour to use it. (back in 2008)
Therefore, this sets a president for all other datasets with a similar
license, that if it receives 1 - a positive vote from the OSMF AND 2 -
Direct permission (in writing) from someone who can act on behalf the
source. Then it's ok to use. (So the actual text of the license
doesn't matter when the 1st 2 points are provided).
So then a vote can happen for if OSMF wants to retain whatever tainted
data they choose to accept.
I have already specifically requested the OSMF to have a Imports
Working group, so then can look at all of the datasets and vote on
each. Thus, fulfilling the requirements of "Formal Discussion
Unfortunately, it seems that the OSMF is not interested in directly
ensuring the quality of the database as a 'pure odbl' dataset.
The work required to create a new empty dataset, and directly copy in
all of the 'Officially supported' data, can be simply crowd-sourced.
Tagging can be fixed with the more correct tags, and there will be no
duplicate nodes, and no messy imported data, as all datasets will
require the OSMF to approve it (and probably should be only the OSMF
appointed people to copy in the bulk data directly).
This will ensure 100% compliance. (this is an obvious solution, that
everyone can be happy with), so those who choose not to accept ODbl
can continue and work on another project (outside of OSM) with a
minimal interruption for actual mapping for everyone (whatever
'actual' means to the contributors). :)
The final planet.osm file will be made available, where users can copy
in data that has approval. (and even trace over the old map, (where
the non-compliant data is removed kept in another planet.osm file for
others to use)
The alternate, is that after the changeover, the OSM map will be a
tainted dataset with no way to filter out the data.
p.s. here's the chart i mention in the below message. (it's open access editing)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Vekemans <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:09 AM
Subject: imports working group
To: board Board <Board at osmfoundation.org>
Does OSM Foundation not have an 'Imports Working Group', where this
commitee can have the final say in any data that can be used in
I am creating a database chart, for just this purpose, and can include
a column 'OSM Foundation approved' with a link.
This way, there will be no question on if a dataset is Ok ...
regardless of the licence... the OSMF has the power to make a decision
on the datasets. .... since OSMF owns the api and main servers.
Unlike small-time contributor edits .. bulk data (of any size) should
go through the OSMF - imports working group... and pubmit it to the
board for an approval vote for each dataset.
ps. this is why i recommend converting the data to .osm 1st... then
let the community look at it an examine it.
We did this for CanVec and geobaseNHN and statscan... and it works just fine.
IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
>> > On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
>> >> It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-)
>> > I was under the impression the LWG was already talking to Nearmap,
>> Sure. Aren't there AU gov't sources that would be nice to have
>> permission to use?
>> > however I don't have a problem with the current license, so I don't
>> > see a point in wasting it to further the agenda of commercial
>> > entities...
>> This bogeyman again? Which commercial entities? What agenda? Moving
>> to and Open Data License from an Open Creative Content License is the
>> right thing to do for an Open Data Project. Using CT to make adapting
>> to the future easier for the future OSM community is the right thing
>> to do for our future selves.
>> >> That will vary by publisher. The permission from the Canadian
>> >> government took a couple of days but others might be faster.
>> > I'm suspicious that the data is going to be compatible with the CTs,
>> > but of course these little details are swept under the rug...
>> Nope. Explicit permission to contribute to OSM with CTs.
> Richard, can you explain how section 4 of the Geogratis license  works
> with respect to the CTs please?
> My understanding is that 4.3 requires the Licensee to indemnify Canada
> against damages etc? Is this compatible with section 6.2 of the Contributor
> Terms? If I understand it right 6.2 excludes any liability. Isn't this
> contrary to Geogratis's stipulation in 4.3?
> Can you explain please?
>  http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/licence.jsp
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
More information about the osmf-talk