OSM/OSMF has become a farce

Posted by netman55 on 14 December 2011 in English (English)

On one hand we told explicitly not to copy other work such as Google etc and on the other hand, in effect, copying via "remapping" to get round licensing/CT issues. What a ridiculous state to get in as a result of an ill thought out change in T&C's.

To me OSM has lost creditability as a mapping platform (a lot of data may disappear on 1st April 2012, the date seems appropriate!) and I will at least suspend if not give up altogether my "goodwill" contribution to OSM which I have done for over the last 4 years, any further updates may only be done where it suits me.

I have never known an organisation to be so ungrateful to people who give their free time and effort to an "open project" particularly in the case of being to unable contact people to "change their ways". OSM should be thankful for their contribution in the first place

Comment from 42429 on 15 December 2011 at 00:36

You are right!

Comment from Harry Wood on 15 December 2011 at 03:01

Remapping principles. "Remapping means 'replacing with new content from a source compatible with the CT's'. It does not mean simply copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights.".

A lot of data may disappear. Not really that much, and not really "disappear".

At this stage there is still an effort to win hearts and minds, and get people to log-in and tick the box, to help with this transition. You post a diary entry "OSM/OSMF has become a farce". Sorry you feel that way ...but really. You're just making yourself part of the problem.

Comment from emj on 15 December 2011 at 09:20

"You're just making yourself part of the problem."

I believe that attitude is the problem. :-( I've seen out of the remappings on OWL a couple of them are clear copy and paste. Now it's ok legally in these cases, but the users doing those "remappings" can't know that.

That said I don't think netman55 should quit.

Comment from Harry Wood on 15 December 2011 at 12:17

Well there's what you've seen out of the remappings on OWL. That's one thing, ...but then there's this negativity directed at OSM and the OSMF, with accusation seemingly being that these organisations are explicitly instructing people to "copying via remapping to get round licensing/CT issues". If you see that message somewhere, please help to fix it. There shouldn't be any inconsistency with the message that data should never copied from incompatible sources. Everyone can help with ensuring that the message is clear, and feel free to have a friendly discussion about what the message should be if you are unsure.

Comment from Richard on 15 December 2011 at 13:02

If you feel that strongly, then you are better off without OSM, and OSM is better off without you. You may find a fork like FOSM more suited to your view. Enjoy whatever you do next, and bye.

Comment from Jonathan Bennett on 15 December 2011 at 13:03

OSM should be thankful for their contribution in the first place

I am, and I'd be even more grateful if they'd allow their contributions to continue to be used. Unfortunately some people have got the idea that the licence change is some kind of conspiracy, or a stitch-up, and others are actively promoting this idea.

OSMF has chosen a legally and morally responsible way of going about the licence change. It has asked every single contributor for their individual permission, and given them a choice. Many projects have used legal sleight-of-hand (Wikipedia) or require full copyright assignment for all your contributions (GNU).

Talk of OSMF "deleting" data is nothing of the sort. It's simply staying within the law, and respecting mappers' wishes. I wouldn't call that ungrateful.

The practical situation is that the vast majority of useful contributors have agreed to the new CTs and licence. The small pockets of data that remain are by and large replaceable from other sources. As others have already said, those sources should be used rather than just deleting and recreating the same objects. The end result will look very similar, but that's because they're both models of a single reality, and they're meant to be almost identical.

Please believe this: OpenStreetMap remains an open, freely-licenced project, where anyone's constructive contributions are welcome.

Comment from robert on 15 December 2011 at 13:19

"I have never known an organisation to be so ungrateful to people who give their free time and effort to an "open project" particularly in the case of being to unable contact people to "change their ways". OSM should be thankful for their contribution in the first place."

OSM is not google. You are not giving them your data with no return. It's your data. How much have you _used_ openstreetmap? Do you thank the OSMF every time you put load on their servers. Just how grateful are you to the (unpaid) people who keep the various systems running, and give up their free time to try and defend the project from complex legal issues.

There are too many openstreetmappers with a really bad attitude that I just cannot understand and I'm not sorry to lose them. Goodbye.

Comment from joakimfors on 15 December 2011 at 14:05

The biggest problem to me is that no one really know what will disappear yet as the rules haven't been set. Will a 4 year old "highway=road" cerated by an undecided/rejected/anonymous user, that was way of the mark, and that I've since moved, refined, retagged etc be removed? Sucks if I put a lot of work into an area and it will all be gone just because the initial useless stub was created by a rejecting/undecided/anonymous user. Same thing with extending a very very short initial road (few meters) and mapping it for several km. Will this be removed even though the initial stub was more or less useless?

I saw an algoritm posted as a comment on the OSMF blog that would at least preserve "legal" edits. Is this going to be used. The uncertainty of what is really going to happen sucks.

Comment from ceyockey on 16 December 2011 at 01:27

When the licensing change notification came about, I immediately said 'sure, ok' and agreed. This was because a) I contribute (here and on several other collaborative sites) assuming or specifically stating that everything I do is in the public domain and only restricted by the platform on which I contribute and b) the Foundation appears to be sincere about its primary mission statement ... to provide maps which are free from many of the strictures which inhibit reuse of other published map resources. OpenStreetMap is neither perfect nor perfectly free, but it is a far sight better than the alternatives. This is why I will continue to contribute to OSM and why I walked away from Wikimapia. If you do not believe that the Foundation is sincere in trying to abide by its mission statement and believe instead that it is on a covert mission to get all it can for free and then exploit it for riches, then you are contributing to the wrong resource.

Login to leave a comment