[talk-au] license change map

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I'm not sure this would work in practice. As others have said, it would be
very difficult (effectively impossible) to know which of the many edits I
have made in the last 3 years relied on data where the author doesn't now
agree to the contributor terms. It would be similarly difficult for future
changes.

If we get an agreeable licence for the main sources of "non-survey" data
(I'm including at least Nearmap and the Bureau of Statistics data in that -
what about Yahoo?) then this becomes a little more manageable.

When so much data is derived this starts to get a lot more difficult. While
mapping the streets of Tamworth (NSW) was pretty much totally survey work,
there are still helpful things like Bureau of Statistics data marking creeks
and rivers. (e.g. Peel river) Is my data totally not derived in this case?

For walks I surveyed in Scotland, I did also look at the OS map for that
area, so arguably that data is also partly derived. Could this change be
kept, or would it need to be deleted?

 - Ben Kelley.

On 22 November 2010 23:10, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Ben Kelley <ben.kelley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think I'm in a similar situation. Some of my work is derived (e.g.
> Nearmap). Therefore I can't agree to the CT as they stand.
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> On License Working Group calls recently, we've discussed a method for
> contributors to mark their changesets.  If implemented, you could
> accept the CTs, mark those of your changesets that should not be
> promoted to ODbL, and add a tag to them such as "AU gov. CC-By-SA" or
> something else that indicates the nature of the problem with the data.
>  We've looked at this possibility with a user case like yours in mind.
>  Is this a change that you would support?
>
> The extra step of tagging the data to say why it should not be
> promoted helps during the license change process.  Should, for
> example, the UK OpenGov license be applied to the Ordnance Survey
> Streetview data and the OGL be declared acceptable, that data would
> not have to be removed during changeover.  Also, large groups of
> changesets with similar issues, can be given additional attention for
> negotiation with the publisher.
>



-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kelley at gmail.com
http://www.users.on.net/~bhkelley/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20101123/7d3dd79b/attachment.html>