why delete?
why delete?
Posted Jan 12, 2011 20:58 UTC (Wed) by ncm (guest, #165)Parent article: OpenStreetMap's point of no return
The scrupulous way to do this would be simply to fork the present project, compete with it under the new terms, and see who wins.
Posted Jan 12, 2011 21:26 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (5 responses)
If you split OSM's contributor base, the winner will be Google Maps.
Posted Jan 12, 2011 21:46 UTC (Wed)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (3 responses)
If you stepped back ~15 years, would you say to the Wikipedia folks that if they split from Nupedia, that the winner would be Britannica?
I am not claiming that you are wrong, simply that you are making a wild and bold prediction of the future as if it were a simple obvious fact. I don't believe that it is.
Posted Jan 13, 2011 10:55 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
Nupedia wasn't at OSM's stage of development when Wikipedia forked off from it.
What I think is wild and bold is the proposition of a fork when there's no current need for it. If the licence debate gets to a point where contributors start leaving, then yeh, I hope those contributors at least work on another free mapping project. Some things are worth forking over. But for so long as everyone can continue to work together, it's probably best to do so.
If forking was so harmless, why only fork in two? Why not invite OSM to fork into ten little projects? :-)
Posted Jan 13, 2011 17:16 UTC (Thu)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (1 responses)
The lack of forking when a project is taking a wrong turn is also demotivating (Again, I am not claiming it is a wrong turn). Forking could mean a gain in contributors (I believe that was likely the point in the original suggestion), in the right case, it does. And, not forking can sometimes lose more contributors.
> Nupedia wasn't at OSM's stage of development when Wikipedia forked off from it.
> If forking was so harmless, why only fork in two? Why not invite OSM to fork into ten little projects? :-)
Why not fork in 100 projects? It likely won't matter. since 98 of those 100 projects will likely have 1 contributor to them. Just because someone forks a project doesn't mean that anyone is going to follow them. Tiny and numerous forks happen all the time on almost every project, even small ones, you just don't consider them forks because they don't amount to anything, they have no effect on the main project. Many simply remerge with the main project regularly. Many are dropped and the contributors remerge.
If someone wants to fork, because they are dissatisfied, they are likely lost to start with. If someone else follows them, then it is a sign of greater dissatisfaction. This type of forking is a way of expressing an irreconcilable difference. If it gets to this point, not forking does not fix the problem. Forking at least has the potential to. Forking is a sign of energy, it can be a great counter to apathy. If forking can kill a project, it is already dead.
Posted Jan 24, 2011 15:21 UTC (Mon)
by bblammo (guest, #72548)
[Link]
Two separate services with different licensing, let the data owners decide which they want. The end users can decide which they want to use as well, and add to where needed, is one falls short for some reason.
Posted Jan 12, 2011 21:50 UTC (Wed)
by giggls (subscriber, #48434)
[Link]
Google Maps is an entirely different thing than OSM. OSM is all about free geodata while Google Maps is about online map stuff only.
The strength of OSM in the area of online maps are special maps for all kinds of purposes which are simply not available in the proprietary area.
Examples in other areas are Maps for Hikers, Cyclists, Skiing and many others as well as Maps for Offline use in GPS receivers etc.
Posted Jan 12, 2011 22:53 UTC (Wed)
by jameslivingston (guest, #57330)
[Link] (6 responses)
Basically.
> Indeed, is it, being a compilation of facts, subject to any conditions at all? ... If not, why does it matter whether they agree to anything?
That's one of the really messy things, it greatly depends on jurisdiction. Some places you can't copyright facts, some you can if they've collection into a database. Some places you can copyright the database, some places have sui generis database rights, some have neither.
Posted Jan 13, 2011 8:47 UTC (Thu)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link] (5 responses)
> That's one of the really messy things, it greatly depends on jurisdiction. Some places you can't copyright facts, some you can if they've collection into a database. Some places you can copyright the database, some places have sui generis database rights, some have neither.
I wonder whether they really need to have the data protected in all jurisdictions? I presume that what they want is to prevent evil people incorporating the data into their own, closed offerings. But I would have thought that if said evil people could then no longer offer what they have in some important markets they might well decide that it isn't worth it anyway.
Posted Jan 13, 2011 15:45 UTC (Thu)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link] (4 responses)
Yes, you need that. Otherwise, evilcorp downloads a dump of the OSM data from LaxCountry where the data is in the public domain. Then evilcorp can claim full copyright over the data and make it proprietary.
Just ensuring that something stays in the public domain is very hard :-)
Posted Jan 13, 2011 15:52 UTC (Thu)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link] (2 responses)
> Yes, you need that. Otherwise, evilcorp downloads a dump of the OSM data from LaxCountry where the data is in the public domain. Then evilcorp can claim full copyright over the data and make it proprietary.
But in places where it is protected, surely you would be able to say "you downloaded that data from us in a place where that was allowed, but you can't offer anyone in this place, where it isn't allowed, access to the proprietary database you included it in." Given my limited knowledge of the subject that is no more than a hypothesis of course.
Posted Jan 15, 2011 2:12 UTC (Sat)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 20, 2011 23:53 UTC (Thu)
by emj (guest, #14307)
[Link]
Posted Jan 13, 2011 17:28 UTC (Thu)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Posted Jan 12, 2011 23:45 UTC (Wed)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (3 responses)
That's one reason to be sceptical of the claims that a licence change is needed.
Posted Jan 14, 2011 1:20 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
One doesn't enforce the license; one enforces the copyright. The license is a copyright holder's waiver of some of his copyright. If copyright does not apply, all we can really say about the license is that any conditions in that license are irrelevant since no one has any need for the license.
Posted Jan 14, 2011 7:05 UTC (Fri)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 14, 2011 7:28 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
All I'm saying is that "the current license is unenforceable" is gibberish. It's not something you can agree with or disagree with; it says nothing. It's like "the current pumpkin is unenforceable."
In contrast, "copyright does not apply" means something -- something which may or may not be true.
why delete?
why delete?
why fork?
why fork?
Please explain. Do you feel it is way ahead or way behind Nupedia?
why fork?
why delete?
why delete?
why delete?
why delete?
why delete?
why delete?
why delete?
Copyright doesn't work like that. Steamboat Willie is in the public domain in many countries, but you cannot somehow launder it through a different country and then re-import it to the USA.
why delete?
why delete?
why delete?
if indeed 'copyright does not apply' and the current licence is unenforceable,
why delete?
If copyright does not apply, all we can really say about the license is that any conditions in that license are irrelevant since no one has any need for the license.
I completely agree. If the work is not covered by copyright, no licence is necessary! The claim that 'the current licence is unenforceable' is one of the reasons given for replacing it with the ODbL, which attempts to be a click-through EULA enforcing extra restrictions on use of the work. It's not a claim that I agree with and perhaps I should have put it in quotation marks along with 'copyright does not apply' (to computer-readable map data).
why delete?