[talk-au] remapping Australia from bing

Ian Sergeant inas66+osm at gmail.com
Sun Nov 13 11:12:57 GMT 2011


Hi,

The OSM community has always chosen to err on the side of caution on
copyright issues.

The community has gone to extraordinary lengths to gather street names from
untainted sources, with most names around the world gathered form OSMers
visiting the actual streets.

If your perspective is truly that all street names are without copyright,
and you will copy them into OSM without gaining community support, then you
are surely going against the community wishes.  You are not doing anybody
any favours, putting your own data and data built on yours at risk.

Personally, all my OSM contributed data is in the public domain, you may
copy it how you wish without fear of legal action from me!  However, I
along with many others wish to ensure that OSM remains legally unencumbered
beyond any doubt.

Ian.

On 13 November 2011 21:54, <FK270673 at fantasymail.de> wrote:

> First of all, remapping existing ways, whether for OSM or for FOSM, or for
> any other fork, is an annoying waste of time, and I have always called it a
> madness, and I still would prefer to reuse existing ways if it was legally
> possible. Months ago, I was a strong supporter of improving existing ways
> in order to honor previous contributors.
>
> However, the Licence Working Group has threatened to delete all ways made
> by decliners (or even non-responders), even if they have been later edited
> by CT-accepting mappers. There is no legal obligation to do so, but the
> OSMF does not have any cent to enforce their potential rights in a lawsuit.
>
> However, this license change, and the way how it was announced, has
> disappointed many mappers who refused to accept, mainly based on personal
> sentiments. I don't really know whether Nearmap was so much better than
> Bing.
>
> The problem is caused by mappers who are refusing to relicense their data
> without any valid reason. In general, the relicensing process is just a
> formality: You allow any user to use the database either under CC-by-sa or
> under ODbL license. This license is NON-exclusive: it allows to contribute
> this data for ANY project, whether OSM or FOSM or any other project. I
> don't have any problems with contributing to both projects as well.
>
> Many legislations, e.g. in the United States, Japan and many European
> countries, do not allow minorities to refuse their consent without any
> valid reason nor do they consider facts as protected by copyright. Simple
> facts (e.g. real street names) are NEVER protected by copyright, otherwise
> it would be a copyright violation to use them in any way.
>
> > Just because someone has a individual view that some data
> isn't covered by copyright doesn't make it so.
>
> Are you a lawyer who can decide whether data is protected by copyright or
> not? If you think that I have violated any copyright, please make a lawsuit
> against me - I will give my address to your lawyer, but I will consider all
> your accusations as unsubstantial if you don't start a lawsuit against me.
> Oh, it's easier to write a letter to the LWG and to tell them fairytales
> about potential lawsuits than to make a real one!
>
> Truth (e.g. real street names) is not covered by copyright, otherwise it
> would be a copyright violation to tell it. Only lies (invented ideas) may
> be protected by copyright as they are invented by the liar himself.
>
> It would be the easiest solution if as many Australian mappers as possible
> would simply click the "Accept Button" - not for Steve or any of the board
> members, but just in order not to disappoint the 46,000 collaborating
> mappers who have agreed so far.
>
> OpenStreetMap once started to provide one free map for all. Now it seems
> that two fighting projects are claiming a copyright for each byte or letter
> within the database, just in order to damage the other project rather than
> making a benefit for whole humanity.
>
> ODbL was intended to exchange datasets between different projects, e.g.
> OSM and GoogleMapMaker (provided they agree). It was intended to facilitate
> small (three-digit) extracts that are not covered by any copyright or
> database right. It was intended to facilitate derived maps under another
> license (e.g. weather maps or congestion maps which are quickly outdated).
> All of these benefits would not be feasable, at least for Australia, if you
> continue not to accept the new license.
>
>
>
>
> --
> NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie!
> Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20111113/05588abe/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list