Talk:ODbL/Upcoming

This page is for discussion...

Icon for Community Crossings/Projects/Buldings

Is there a way to add some icons and denomination for community driven places?

Available translations

So far, the following translations of the license change documentation have been created by the community:

• German translation / deutsche Übersetzung

Suggestions welcome on how to better feature the translations. -- Firefishy 16:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Choices?

The http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License perhaps should have a section on choices the user will be presented, and what each of the choices means (Yes/PD/No) --mnalis 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done and will improve it further. Thanks, good idea. MikeCollinson 17:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We have only to say the choice 'YES, and not 'NO or 'I DON'T KNOW (this is normal in the oldest current democracy) --Abonino 11:43, 14 August 2010 (BST)

That wording is probably meant for phase 3, the mandatory phase, where it then makes more sense to have a decline button? But the difference needs clarification --Amm 15:37, 17 August 2010 (BST)

How about a choice: "I want to grant (non-exclusively) full rights to openstreetmap.org to use the data and relicense it and not bother me with future licensing issues in the future". This is the type of thing that major open source software projects do, which gets around lots of issues in moving forward with changes in the legal and social landscape. Provided openstreetmap.org has a relatively transparent democratic governance (of which I am currently ignorant), this would seem to be at least as safe as the "public domain" option. j-beda 15:58, 18 August 2010 (BST)

Link to /user/terms

With phase two begun, this page needs a big clear link (one where people who don't care about the license can obviously see it, click on it and be done with it so that they can forget about it again ) to the /user/terms page where they can accept the new license (if they are happy with it). A warning about imports and that if they have done any need to check more carefully if they can accept the new CT would however also be important at that point. --Amm 15:37, 17 August 2010 (BST)

There are still no clear (translated) instructions on the ODbL/Upcoming page how to actually accept the new CT. If you don't tell people a) that they actually need to do something and b) what, where and how in very simple terms, you will just not be able to reach many people.

Internationalisation?

Is there a process or way to localize the "official" OSMF license change documentation? It would be nice if the documentation at least for the top few languages could be translated before the next steps of asking the current contributors to accept the new license. Legal documents are often met with a bit of distrust of what the small print may hide. If it is on top written in a language that one doesn't understand well may not help inspire the necessary trust. Amm 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably essential to get positive responses from non-native or non-English speakers. It would also be nice to have a human readable version of the license available, similar to what is there for Creative Commons' licenses. Augustus.kling 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a human readable version of ODBL ( http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ ) There were also some attempts at making the contributor terms "human readable" ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Human_readable ) not sure what the status of that is though. But they should probably also have internationalised versions Amm 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Licensing Timeout/expiry

I'd really like to see some sort of auto-expiry on the license, of perhaps 3-5 years, so that map data that old automatically falls into PD or CC0. 3 Year old OSM Data is really stale, we can give it away for free, and by that enable really innovative uses of map data, which is one of the main goals of the OSM Project. It would be nice if the Choices page reflected that, plus it avoids unreachable/dead people from blocking another license change in the future. --Deelkar (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. The underlying reason why we are forced to do open street map is over protective IP laws. It would be good to set an example by having a reasonable time before IP protection lapses. Unfortunately, I don't think large import providers will knowingly agree to that. But if they accept the contributor terms, OSMF have the power (when certain conditions are satisfied) to PD the whole database. --TimSC 15:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting data in PD after 3-5 years is indeed a great idea! Too bad it looks like it is way too late to make such changes at this time. :-( Now, TimSC, what do you mean OSMF have the power to PD the whole database if they so choose? I was under impression it was impossible unless they also get the majority of active OSM contributors to agree? Or did your "when certain conditions are satisfied" mean that? (which would be quite stretching the meaning; it could also be said then that for example I myself can change the contributor terms, given I can satisfy few conditions: namely getting majority of OSMF and OSM active contributors to agree) --mnalis 18:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That was the meaning I intended. I did not say it explicitly state it as it is a bit off topic here. --TimSC 11:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been discussed on legal-talk at some point but I can't for the life of me think when. I agree that it's a good idea, notwithstanding detail about whether it should be three or ten years. It's not too late. I'd suggest that one of you dons asbestos suit and proposes it to legal-talk. :) --Richard 09:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a back door approach to getting the data into PD, will this be then used to push a feature creep where the time limit is reduced by those that only want data to be PD? --Delta foxtrot2 06:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not in line with what import sources (have) agreed to. Some of them, anyway. Clause 4 of the Contributor guarantees attribution for those who want it, so it can't go PD - which by definition doesn't have any restrictions such as attribution requirements. Alv 06:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why the contributor should (must) be agreeing to that timeout, so his/her contributions can go PD/CC0, which in turn means OSM goes CC0 automatically. This also should address Delta foxtrot2's concerns. Feature creep could only occur with the contributors agreeing to the shorter timeouts. --Deelkar (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been a hard road in getting governments to open up data under even an attribution license, it would be so much harder to get their thinking shifted again to forgo attribution stipulations. What this would mean is all cc-by data would disappear and as someone correctly pointed out above, it's been hard enough to shift attribution licenses, this would make things a lot more difficult for everyone. --Delta foxtrot2 12:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But the CC-BY-SA data will always go PD after some time (usually after 70 years in most countries currently AFAICT) by the force of copyright law, so all of them must have been expecting data going PD eventually. This is just using licence to put more reasonable timeout for going PD for this project. --mnalis 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

At present crown copyright is 50 years, but that's assuming governments don't keep extending copyright terms. --JohnSmith 18:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alv, if that were the case, not only PD but the ODbL doesn't satisfy your interpretation of section 4 of the contributor terms? I read the ODbL as not having viral attribution for produced works and it has no provision for these extra attributions(?). --TimSC 11:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care, as long as data improvements are expected to be available for feeding back to osm. Attribution for distributing data doesn't equal distributing (map) images, at least in some countries, for some users, under (in those countries) valid contract terms; only very few international law specialists will know for sure and probably disagree about some cases. It's about what the data donators think they can expect. Alv 11:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@TimSC there is so many contributors that it would take more much more room than the map needs, perhaps this needs to be available on a per tile basis some how, but that aside the ODBL and as best as I can tell, the original intent behind cc-by-sa was to get work attributed in a database and as a collective link back to the database where/when that data is being used. --JohnSmith 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Contributor Terms Scrolling Box

The draft form includes a part called Short scrolling box with complete Contributor Terms.

Please make sure that a link is given nearby that allows to display the contributor term's text in a new browser window. This is because nobody wants to read a long text in a wee box with non-adjustable line width. Augustus.kling 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The box is full page width and about 70% of the content fits into the box on I would say most people's screens. The contributor terms text in question. --Firefishy 19:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

CC-by-sa compatibility

Been digging through quite a lot of pages to find this out, but haven't been able to locate an answer;

So osm.org changes its licence, and us similar minded over at Wikitravel.org people go about our normal business making maps like this or this, in essence static derivatives of osm.org data, released under CC-by-sa 2+

Would that put us at odds with the new license? if it does, that a pretty big deal to us, that you'd need to shout louder about before a vote is put up, since our content is reused very widely, and introducing another licence would complicate reuse to a point where we would be forced to consider banning future OSM content - and pretty much local maps - since we don't have the resources to make our own.

Not saying that would necessarily be the end result, but we'd definitely have to discuss it, thoroughly Sertmann 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It would make it easier for you, the map tiles themselves won't be covered by a derivative license, it would be up to those who render as to what license applies to map tiles. I have no idea what OSM-F plans to do, but they may keep publishing map tiles under a cc-by-sa license. --Delta foxtrot2 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes as Delta foxtrot2 says, the rendered map would be a produced work and you would be able to license it under CC-by-sa. Tiles from tile.openstreetmap.org will likely continue to be licensed under CC-BY-SA or other open license, at this stage I am not sure. --Firefishy 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, regardless of however the Produced Work is licensed, you would be able to continue using derivatives of OSM data using CC-BY-SA's "Collective Work" provision. Your page can be a collective work containing your CC-BY-SA-licensed original content, plus maps and images from elsewhere licensed however you like. This is exactly what Wikipedia has always done: they have never required that all images be GFDL-licensed (or latterly CC-BY-SA). --Richard 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Plan B: Double license CC-by-sa AND ODbL/CC0

Changing license within a crowdsourced content pool is a difficult task. The Implementation Plan still has some open questions, such as removal of data which is not moving to ODbL - I fear we'll get a lot of holes. As a plan B I would suggest that we ask contributors to ADDITIONALLY license their contributions as public domain OR ODbL AND keep CC-by-sa licensing as default. Interpretation of copyright experts, what is content and what is data is not unique and for most usages CC-by-sa may be sufficient, as it was in the past. ODbL and CC-by-sa is not contradicting, if we apply the one to data and the other to works in a legal sense. We would then continue to have ALL map data in CC-by-sa and for all critical database applications, only data with ODbL may be used. Disclaimer: We have introduced double licensing at RegisteredCommons.org in 2007 due to users' demand. And my wife is a copyright expert to court (in Austria). -- rasos 10:11, 1 Nov 2010

What about users who've made use of sources under CC-By or CC-SA licenses?

I've already asked this some time ago over at License Implementation Plan Discussion but never got a response. Perhaps it's more appropriate there though...

If users have used data sources that were explicitly under a CC-By or CC-SA style license, they can't legally licence all their contributions under ODbL. I'm thinking in particular about any contributors that have made use of Ordnance Survey Opendata (including tracing or taking street names from the StreetView layer in Potlatch). This creates two issues: (1) how to allow users to licence only some of their previous contributions under ODbL, and (2) The need to negotiate with Ordnance Survey and any other known CC-By sources that aren't already recorded as Imports to allow use under ODbL. -- Rjw62 17:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Only CC-by-SA isn't compatible with ODBL, CC-by data seems to be compatible with ODBL... -- JohnSmith 08:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not with regard to produced works unfortunately. As far as I can tell, there's no requirement under ODbL to attribute original data-sources in a produced work (only a reference to the current ODbL database from which the work was produced is required). There are also no requirements to insist that downstream users of the produced work provide any attribution at all. -- Rjw62 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If ODBL is meant to replace cc-by-sa with a similar license including attribution I fail to see how you are correct. --JohnSmith 10:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Similar in spirit, but not identical in law. In particular it allows produced works to be licensed differently. -- Rjw62 10:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there is doubts if cc-by-sa even apply to data in the first place, there is just as many doubts if this means images generated by cc-by-sa data, and without a court judgment it's all just speculation and conjecture... -- JohnSmith 11:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is really no doubts if cc-by-sa applies to data; the doubts were only if it applies in certain jurisdictions (like USA, UK, and few others). In some jurisdictions (like for example Croatia where I'm from), database rights are integral part of copyright law (called "Zakon o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima"), and so here CC-BY-SA applies without question equally good to OSM database as to literary works. But the problem is that the law is different in other countries (which might have separate database law, or lack it completely), that international law conflict resolving is messy if jurisdiction is not defined in advance (as in case of OSM CC-BY-SA 2.0 it was not), and that OSMF licence aims to be clearly compatible worldwide (and not just in Croatia or just in UK or wherever) - and not to be ambiguous and in "gray area" (that is the whole point of the licence being changed afterall! if licence ambiguity was acceptable, we might have better stayed with CC-BY-SA 2.0 without going through all this effort, necessary data loss involved etc.) --mnalis 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another, perhaps more important, issue is that the new contributor terms say that you "grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents". It goes on to say that they'll only use certain aspects of these rights in the spirit of CC-By-SA, but nevertheless, the main grant of full rights is still there. Even if we find that ODbL is compatible, the terms explicitly allow OSMF to later re-license under "another free and open license" if agreed by the OSM community. You certainly don't have the authority to do this with someone else's CC-licensed data without their permission. -- Rjw62 10:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a CC-by-SA limitation, rather than CC-by? As long as the license is similar enough, ie gives attribution, where is the problem exactly? --JohnSmith 10:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If I've understood CC-By correctly, it requires attribution to be enforced on all derivative works. I therefore can't take a derivative work of a CC-By work and offer it to someone else on terms that don't include those inherited attribution requirements. I'm therefore unable to "grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents". Even if you decide you're not really giving away all those rights because of the following clause 3 of the contributor terms, you still need to explicitly give OSMF the right to re-license under an unspecified license with no guaranteed attribution requirements built in. For contributions that are derivatives of CC-By works, I don't believe you have the necessary rights to do this. -- Rjw62 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it looks like even CC-BY is completely against clause 2 of Contributor terms 1.0, which says (among other things) that "2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees[...]", and cc-by legalcode says (among other things) under section 4.Restrictions: "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License". So even CC-BY (and much less CC-BY-SA) is not compatible with new contributor terms already being deployed, and so when (and if) the time for switch comes non-complying derivative works like CC-BY imports (and edits based on them) will have to get new license permission from database owners, or be removed from OSM database (and such data loss is one of the main reasons I've voted against switching of licence). I do not even think it was ever disputed by LWG, but instead was AFAIK known and accepted in advance --mnalis 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but the restrictions you quoted are for the Work (the original data) itself. If you're going to incorporate the Work into the OSM database, it becomes a Derivative Work and thus only Section 4b of the CC-BY license applies and it only specifies that you attribute the original Work/Author/CC-BY license. There's no virality of attribution required. So I'm unconvinced that CC-BY is incompatible with OdBL inasmuch as the translation of the Work into the OSM schema is considered a derived work. --seav 02:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

IANAL either, but Which Creative Commons license can I use for my new work? seems pretty clear that derivatives of a CC-By work need to maintain the "By" provisions if re-licensed. -- Rjw62 09:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That FAQ entry is kinda weird since that FAQ entry itself (not the whole FAQ) has a legal disclaimer that the "chart" (table) is not considered legal advice. I've read and re-read again the legal text of CC-BY 3.0 Unported and cannot find a supporting evidence that the attribution must be viral on descendant derivative works. I tried to search the Net for the virality of the BY clause and apart from a mailing list post on a third party site, I can't find a definitive answer to this question.

In fact, the legal text of CC-BY 3.0 Unported does not say anything at all about the licensing of any derivative work (aka "Adaptation") and the only basic requirement for any derived work is attribution reasonable to the medium. --seav 10:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be pretty silly if the attribution requirements could be side-stepped simply by going via an intermediate adaptation. I think the way CC-By is supposed to work is as follows: Any adaptations / produced works still contain IP belonging to the author of the original work. The CC-By license doesn't explicitly grant the author of the adaptation the right to license it for re-use, but clause 8b means that any recipients are free to use the IP of the original work under CC-By. Hence if the author of the adaptation similarly licenses their IP in the adaptation, the whole adaptation can be used under the terms of CC-By (albeit by two separate licenses from the two contributing parties). Whatever license the author of the adaptation chooses to offer his IP in the adaptation under, he still can't remove the attribution requirements on the IP from the original work (unless of course the original author gives him permission to do so). -- Rjw62 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also equally silly if the original author still has to be attributed long after the time that the original work is still recognizable due to successive adaptations and derivations. And using the research paper analogy that has been mentioned in legal-talk, you don't cite the papers that were cited by the papers you referenced in your paper. What you're probably saying is, to the extent that that original work is still recognizable then that original author must still be attributed. That seems reasonable, but that unfortunately doesn't seem to be codified in the legal text of CC-BY 3.0 Unported. I think OSMF needs to talk to the CC guys and clarify the virality of attribution giving plenty of examples.

For instance, Dave Shea's case study on "design theft" as a stand-in for derivative works is a good example to talk about. If the original photo was CC-BY and the last Photoshop manipulation was subsequently published, does a derivative of that manipulation still have to attribute the photographer? Why or why not, with respect to the legal text of the license? --seav 19:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone comment on how much vector data or meta data have to change to be considered significant that you no longer have to attribute the previous author? --JohnSmith 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it that anyone can. What is considered derivative work (and hence, where CC-BY holds and you must attribute authors) is not defined by CC folks; it is instead defined by a court in your jurisdiction, when interpreting your country copyright law. And here is a catch - something defined as non-derivative work or otherwise exempt from copyright protection in your jurisdiction (by, for example, fair use rights in some countries) will not work in other country where it would still be defined clearly as derivative work. Add to that the non-deterministic horror of international law and conflict solving among them, and anyone who claims (s)he knows how something will work out is probably lying. And the example invoked was, by the way, one of the main problems with CC-BY-SA 2.0 for OSM data and produced works (which still count as derivative works), which prompted whole licence change issue - that it was possible (in some jurisdictions) that an A4 print of the map might easily require you to also print 10 A4 pages of all contributors to the data the map was made from. And if you did not, any of the thousands that created any of that data could sue you (and have a good chance of winning). So many entities supposedly rather choose to ignore OSM to their loss, than to get entangled in such possible legal nightmare. That is not to say that I cherish the move to ODbL and new Contributor Terms; I'm afraid that that cure might be more devastating than the poison (see the links on my homepage if you want to know more of my opinion on the subject). --mnalis 20:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ODBL v Contributor Terms

It seems some things are being confused between the proposed license (ODBL) and the new contributor terms, it seems the non-compatibility with cc-by data is the contributor terms, not the new license --JohnSmith 00:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The incompatible restrictions of CC-BY only applies to the original Work kept intact (e.g., displayed, performed or incorporated into a Collective Work). If you make a Derived Work, then you only need to to provide attribution reasonable to the medium and there is no propagation of virality for subsequent Derived Works (otherwise we would be talking of SA). I believe there is no problem with OdBL since the original geodata when incorporated into OSM becomes a Derived Work (because there is a transformation into OSM's schema and tags). --seav 02:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is the case (see above). In particular, it would be pretty silly if the attribution requirements of CC-By could be side-stepped simply by going via an intermediate adaptation. (SA is there to force you to share the adaptation under a license that is no more restrictive that the original. The point of non-SA is you're perfectly entitled to not allow anyone further use of your adaptation if you so choose.) -- Rjw62 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The ODbL/Upcoming page only talks about the move to ODbL and basically does not really mention or explain the CT. The only references to the important consequences of the CT appear to be brief mentions in the "Have other options been considered?" and "Can I trust the OpenStreetMap Foundation". The statement "OpenStreetMap is asking existing contributors to re-license their contributions under the Open Database License 1.0." also appears to be not entirely accurate, as OSMF is asking its contributors to re-license their contributions under a PD style license to them with an agreement that OSMF will only license it to third parties under the ODbL (CC-BY-SA) or any other "free and open" license should the then active members vote to do so. This difference between incoming and outgoing licenses (i.e. the CT and ODbL) needs to be explained more carefully.

"We Are Changing The License" -- Do we really change the licence?

A copy from my mail to legal-talk:

Richard Weait schrieb: > Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published > planets, for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss. > The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA.

Yes indeed. Including ...

> We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the > license upgrade, or we will not.

... the new planet which is called to be under ODBL.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

But it isn'nt, because the contributors who said "yes" for change don't give their "home copy" of their data a second time like in

"7.b ... Licensor reserves the right to release THE WORK under different license terms"

"the work" = "their original work" and not a copy of it.

But the new "so called ODBL-OSM" is only an "vote-yes"-extract of the old CC-OSM so ...

"1.b 'Derivative Work' means a work based upon the Work ... such as a ... condensation ..."

... is suitable, so ...

"4.b You may distribute ... a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan)."

... also a "so called ODBL-OSM" ist still under CC and only under CC.

A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with "home copies" of the data of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ...

So the process proposed now will hurt CC licence --Mueck 22:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This text is a duplicate of this mailing list post (and at least three more instances of the same discussion) and has already been answered on the mailing list. Please don't reply here, this will only make the discussion even more chaotic. --Tordanik 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"TODO" placeholder

There's still a "(TODO: add more on what this means)" in the text. Has this been forgotten or is there a reason why that paragraph cannot be completed yet? --Tordanik 19:32, 15 August 2010 (BST)

loss of data and quality

I'm just missing a chapter of discussion about this issues on this general licence change discussion page ... So I add it now ;-)

The new ODbL licence might be good, but ... Did you read the fine print of licence change?

"(Accept/Decline/) Do nothing - After the license migration date, we may assume that you Decline ... Your data will no longer be included in the live OSM database ..."

• So every mapper that can't be reached or who declines will leed into loss of data for the project. Convincing as much people as possible won't help because non-reachable mappers can't be convinced!
• It's 100% sure that loss of data will happen!
• And not only data loss, also data failure for concerted objects. If mapper A, B and C made some changes to an object, B corrected some coordinates or tags, but declines or is not reachable, the object is switched back to a wrong state ...
• And for all these things no draft exists, no algorithm is coded, no rules are defined, ... You buy a pig in a poke!
• If you accept the licence change that doesn't make sure, that all of your edits are still part of a future ODbL-OSM, if your work is based n work of other mappers.

That all is absurd! I can't accept such a process of licence change!
The work of the mappers must have priority over licence issues!
The edits of mappers are the base of this community projects! A better licence seems to be necessary, but without saving the WHOLE Data a change of licence is not acceptable. Please stop and find a way to refine the licence without reducing the most important thing in a database project: the data ... --Mueck 13:13, 23 August 2010 (BST)

I agree completely and it's a little scary that no one seems to care about this... One also gets avoiding answers when trying to reach out with this message to those who have made the decision to change the licence. I have accepted anyway, and I think everyone should, to preserve OSM, but the OSM foundation has made a very bad decision here. They both alienate their core user base and external users. How will we explain to external users of this product that much data is suddenly missing? /Grillo 05:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing Functions and critics

I think it would be very nice, to add a routing function to the map. I think this is what people need daily and that may become OSM more popular. If it is complicated. Maybe a first version with a direct way distance would be nice, so that a user can find start- and endpoint easily. The german site www.openstreetmap.de does not even have a search field for a place! This is seriously missing! So maybe the map's interface should be redesigned. I like the idea of OSM and you are doing great work on the map, but its useless if those elementary funcions are missing. I didn't even find a place, where it is clear, that people can post their questions. There should be a community forum or something like that, to interact with people. I am not shure if this will ever be read and discussed. That is realy sad.

Good luck. --C0d3x 15:05, 26 August 2010 (BST)

Well, the license discussion page is surely not the right place for this sort of feedback... :-) There once was a trial for feedback of this kind at http://osm.uservoice.com/forums/41047-general but it was never particularly popular with those who would actually implement any suggestions. Mostly, because "demanding" things never works particularly well in volunteer driven projects. Also openstreetmap.de is actually managed independently of openstreetmap.org, so you would need to contact them directly.

When will be voting?

Does the license change have some schedule?--Kozuch 14:26, 13 September 2010 (BST)

Exact dates haven't been given, but see Implementation Plan. Alv 14:40, 13 September 2010 (BST)

Thanks for a reply. I am interested in contributing under ODbL only... what does double-licensing with cc-by-sa actually mean? I am a new user and my preferences say "You have agreed to the new Contributor Terms". I can imagine that double licensing with cc-by-sa actually hurts the deal of the new ODbL license (in the way that cc-by-sa is not enforceable for OSM mapping data - nodes etc.), am I right? Why do you do double-licensing? Thanks for clarification. --Kozuch 19:25, 13 September 2010 (BST)

Mappers who actually use OSM under a CC licence must be able to use this data under a CC licence forever. It is a matter of trust to fulfill a given licence (CC) forever, even if it does not give perfect protection. --FK270673 07:52, 14 September 2010 (BST)

Just to clarify: that is all data entered before the final switch to an odbl only database. Old dumps remain as they were. Alv 08:29, 14 September 2010 (BST)

I do understand that old contributions remain CC forever. But what about the new ones? Is it possible (or will it be possible after the license switch) to contribute new stuff under ODbL ONLY?--Kozuch 09:03, 14 September 2010 (BST)

Anything contributed after the start of phase 5 described in the previous link will only be made available under the ODbL. Before that, it's technically unfeasible to have new users contributions available under ODbL only, when other users are still making "cc-by-sa edits" in the same database. Alv 09:34, 14 September 2010 (BST)

Okay, now I can see the point. However, I read something about certain users planning to release content to PD after phase 5, so that seems to be again 2 licences in the same database (if I consider PD actually being a license, which in this case one needs to I think)...--Kozuch 12:36, 14 September 2010 (BST)

Accepting the license

How do we accept the new licence?? JOSM sent me here but I cannot find a way to accept the licence. This is bad as I dont want my edits to be dropped. --Andrew Findlay 18:54, 25 October 2010 (BST)

You can accept the license by logging in on openstreetmap.org and clicking on your name in the top right of the page; then clicking the link to your settings. There you'll find the entry that lets you accept the new contributor terms. --Tordanik 19:20, 25 October 2010 (BST)

Thanks for that. This info really needs to be prominent on the page that JOSM directs people to. --Andrew Findlay 12:12, 26 October 2010 (BST)

I'm not seeing anything... I log in, then click my username then "My Preferences" up the top, but nothing looks like an option to Accept the new license. I only joined August 2010, so I'm wondering if it just had me set to accepted automatically, otherwise I would really appreciate someone telling me the link as I'd like to keep my data on OSM! I'm still kind of stunned that a path is being taken where anyone who happens to not know about the license change is going to have their data deleted (as I understand it)... :/ --RoadLessTravelled 00:04, 17 January 2011 (EST)

1. All users who joined after May(?) 2010 accepted the new license and the CTs when joining.
2. All users will be emailed with instructions once all remaining points still being investigated have been cleared and when the contributor terms are in their final form. Alv 06:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

licence change without data loss + better version control + flagged revisions

Hello

I want to add again some remarks to licence change combined with some ideas to qualitiy management and version control. It might be also interesting in combination with a bacchelor thesis http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9817 (in german!) or in combination with the rough view to state of licence change http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?layers=B0

For all of this you need - decisions how to manage licence change and - tools for this.

For the last point we need two tools - get a complete version control of objects - decision of the licence state of an object

Does anyone on this world already works on such tools? I not heard about it.

First tool is needed because of splitting and joining ways. At splitting one new way will appear with a new history and with a new user, if this user did something on this way or not (besides splitting it). For joining the history of one way is lost.

To get a complete history is very awful today. You might get it by viewing all nodes, but this may complicate ...

Such a tool would be useful already toay for some questions: E.g. since when something ist changed at an object and who did it? So it would be nice to get such a tool - independant from licence change - not only for getting old history for licence change - for future use, too

For licence change, a stand alone tool may good enough, but then you will get no intermediate states of licence changes progress

For last point, the API has to learn it, if the editing tool don't gives hints ...

Now we have the first tool ;-) Next point: licence change

Who needs the new licence?

The mapping-only-user not really, because he is already mapping under CC and this seems good enough for him ...

The users of most data also not realy, becauss most things like slippy maps online and on Garmins already work with old licence

But there is a circle of adavanced users of OSM data, who want to put date in special tools, might be mixing them with other data under other licences, and they don't want to get problems with unclear licence ...

I state, that the new licence will be mostly better like the old one. especially for this group, but for others, too, and it would be good to hurry up.

I only have problems with loss of data or (this might be more worse) failures in data because of removing all data, where no one can relicence it because of death, not reachable anymore or left project, ... So some geometry, tags, objects will disappear. If only some nodes or tags of a way disappear, the rest might be very faulty ...

For the circle of special users the new licence is really necesary, but the most users will only get angry, if they will see, which date dissapears or is wrong other change of licence.

So I already discussed some ideas to avoid this, but with no luck yet ... So I try it again now ;-)

One tool has still to be discussed: Which licence has an object? There is a longer list of problems for this decision. I will not discuss them now, because - bacchelor thesis, which may give answers? - this problems are not interesting for my idea. I only want look at the result. This may be: - object clearly 100% OdBL - object clearly 0% ODbL or might be - 100% ODbL - 90% ODbL - ... - 100% CC or - object is 100% PD What exactly has to be discussed, especially for data edited by more than one user, totally unsolved yet.

Up to now the result will be ONE ODbL-only data set.

But why only once and "so binary"?

I think, the process of decision will be programmed as a process, who may be startet more than once, becaus a lot of mapper is interessed to see, what will be the result, if "up to now 47110815 mapper accepted, the new map will be http://... if no more will accept"

Then we have nearly something, that can be used to put this information back to databse instead of extracting a new database So a <way id=...> <node id=...> <tag k=... v=...> or whatever will be verified, will get a new l=... (licence=...) l=o, l=c, l=p or variations like l=o50 for 50% ODbL ... might be also something additional, which can express, WHY an object is only 50% ODbL What exactly may be stored ... May be the bacchelor thesis will gave us ideas?

Then we can do two things:

A. All data stays for ever in OSM, the CC-data, too.

The users who need data independant from licence, will use all of them. Most of slippy maps for example.

The users who need only-ODbL-data don't uses the complete planet.osm but uses planet-odbl.osm or planet-pd.osm (!) or planet-odbl50.osm if they need whole world. Extracts already exist for regions (europe, germany, ...)

The users who need only small parts may ask the XAPI like today, if they want to extract highway=residentials. Now they may use l=o

So no data loss or failure is necessary. The users, who need ODbL-only will get this more earlier, because we don't need to wait for 99% acceptance of new licence, they may start with 75% of data (better than to hav eno ODbL-data...)

Tow effects will force the growth of ODbL-data inside this mixed database: - more and more new users sign ODBL compatible terms - more old users will accept new licence, because of no data will be lost We also still can (and should) decide, that starting at 2011-x-x only users are allowed, who accepted.

But that's not all. Let us also look to:

B: If the data has a l=o or something like this, you also can view it on a map or editor!

The german Wikipedia knows "flagged revisions", in english Wikipedia this wa discussed, but not used?! Besides better version control (look above) this might be the second thing taken from Wikipedia.

What does a standard mapper today? He is mapping missing things - missing nodes, if a curvd street still has "corners" - missing ways completly - missing tags A mapper normally will not map existing things - besides geometry is faulty - besides tags are faulty

The idea to map also the already existent things was first born at discussion of licence change to get clean data. Stupid idea ...

Besides licence change we have another problem, that may be solved: An object created at one time will have this time stamp. If this is 5 years old, we don't know - if this object is really unchanged - if this object is outdated Just now there is no possibility to flag an object as still existent.

If we can view on a map or in an editor the age of an object or the licence state of an object and create such a "flagged revision" we may - confirm, that we are able to map the object again under new licence and/or - confirm, that the object still exist

Might be that we have to distinguish between confirming - geometry - tags First one from own GPS tracks or aerial images, second one from personal knowledge. Or more detailled (I can confirm the surface, but mot the name of it, ...)

We will get problems to hold our data actual. In lot of areas the data seems to be complete, so no one looks at this areas. So no one will notice, that a area is outdated. With viewing the age of data (besides licence state) one can find areas of possibly outdated data

And if we have doubts on existence of an object, we also may unflag a revision.

We also have to design the tool, which decides, if an object is 100% ODbL clean, for using permanently to - work with this flagged revisions for licence state - work with normal edits (moving nodes, changing tags)

advantages: - avoiding loss of data - sliding change of licence - problem of commonly edited objects may be less large for the most ones - ODbL data more early available - data protection more early because CC-only database is away more early - PD data may grow inside OSM - the only way to extract PD data from OSM? and: - more quality using better version control and flagged revisons

disadvantages: - ODbL-only data base takes longer - more load for running system

The disadvantage of CC data staying in OSM will may shrink faster like filling gaps from loss of data if removing them.

If the running system may be a bottle neck by adding such a sliding check of licence stat, revision control and flagged revision, an expert of the API has to check ...

I will crosspost it to some channels of discussion: talk-de, forum and wiki in my language german talk-legal and wiki also for a little bit smaller english version. I hope this reaches the right persons, feel free to spread it.

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=127300 forum copy in english

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=127301 forum copy in german

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005542.html legal-talk

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-December/080718.html talk-de

--Mueck 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Master: navigation and positioning techniques for European GNSS Agency

I have found interesting news and thought it could be useful. Four universities from three countries have created together a new two-year Master of Science degree course in GNSS starting from this September.

The graduate program is based in Toulouse and taught in English. Its main focus is navigation and positioning techniques taking into account different GNSS applications. The program was created with the support of the European Commission and the European GNSS Agency (GSA).

For further info you can check the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) website: http://egnos-portal.gsa.europa.eu/news/first-master-s-degree-course-in-gnss-starts-in-september

Matteo

Autoroute est-ouest d'Algérie non routable encore

Bonjour , j'ai récupérer la carte routable d'Algérie openmtbmap pour mon Garmin nüvi 1490LMT où j'ai roulé sur l'autoroute est-ouest coté ouest:Oran - Maghnia le 05/07/2011; la carte est très juste sur l'écran, malheureusement le GPS ne la reconnais pas; ne me guide pas et pas de ligne en surbrillance a suivre.Quelques explications sont les bien venues. Merci.

"Zones 30" en sens unique en France.

Comment peut-on indiquer que les "zones 30" en sens unique sont accessible à contre-sens pour les vélos?

USA exception--maintain public domain

as the vast majority of US data comes from the USGS public domain data, I feel that all modifications/improvements/etc to the US dataset should be released under the public domain, irregardless of how other areas are licensed under.Scientes 01:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

ODbL terms and Private POIs

Can a user with the map database add personal POIs such as where their first kiss was and other personal information on their private server or they would have to make it avalible for all to see. What are the terms of the share alike nature, does it only come into play when you try to distribute the database?

Share alike requirements of ODbL only apply to "Publicly Use" of databases. --Tordanik 06:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Je suis Roberto Joseph, je suis un nouveau mappeur de cosmha st marc