I am going to publish my style-file (and dual license the rest like typfiles), but I would like that a) any works that build upon it, have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org b) any maps generated by using the style-file or large parts of it have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org Which license does fit here. Is GnuGPL v2 compatible with my intention or is b) not possible? Would CCBYSA 3.0 be better? Hope someone knows a bit better what I should choose. I don't really understand how b) is treated by open-source licenses.
Hi Felix, all, On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:18:18AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
I am going to publish my style-file (and dual license the rest like typfiles), but I would like that a) any works that build upon it, have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org b) any maps generated by using the style-file or large parts of it have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org
Which license does fit here. Is GnuGPL v2 compatible with my intention or is b) not possible? Would CCBYSA 3.0 be better?
Hope someone knows a bit better what I should choose. I don't really understand how b) is treated by open-source licenses.
I spent some thought on this last weekend. I would choose GPLv2 by default, but I am not sure if it is compatible with the OpenStreetMap license <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_License>. To my knowledge, the GPL is not compatible with any attribution clause, so it is not what you are looking for. You might want to read about the DFSG <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines> and especially on the GFDL resolution. It could be reasonable to release all TYP files under the same license as the OpenStreetMap data. Currently, this would be the CCBYSA 2.0. I believe that the mkgmap built-in styles can be licensed by any license (currently the GPLv2). This is OK because the styles are not copied to the output, but they are only rules for generating the output. But as soon as we start to distribute TYP files and other files that are literally copied to the output, it would be reasonable to use a different license or to grant a license exception, similar to what exists for the built-in run-time libraries of GCC (libgcc) and code generators such as compiler compilers (Flex, Bison, ANTLR, ...). Marko
On 20.01.2010 08:01, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
Hi Felix, all,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:18:18AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
I am going to publish my style-file (and dual license the rest like typfiles), but I would like that a) any works that build upon it, have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org b) any maps generated by using the style-file or large parts of it have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org
Which license does fit here. Is GnuGPL v2 compatible with my intention or is b) not possible? Would CCBYSA 3.0 be better?
Hope someone knows a bit better what I should choose. I don't really understand how b) is treated by open-source licenses.
I spent some thought on this last weekend. I would choose GPLv2 by default, but I am not sure if it is compatible with the OpenStreetMap license <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_License>. To my knowledge, the GPL is not compatible with any attribution clause, so it is not what you are looking for.
That is what I figured out myself too. The intention of GPL is more to provide a copyleft framework to be forever able to freely use something. No need for attribution. Also I think maps produced using that style-file could then be published under any license (well if OSM data is used the license is anyhow more or less fixed, my problems are much more related to Garmin copying many of my ideas and innovations in their own maps )
You might want to read about the DFSG <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines> and especially on the GFDL resolution.
It could be reasonable to release all TYP files under the same license as the OpenStreetMap data. Currently, this would be the CCBYSA 2.0.
The problem with CCBYSA is, if I'm correct that anyone subsequently using the style-file would only have to put the produced map/product under CCBYSA too and mention the original author (me) but would not be obliged to opensource his style-file too. Mainly facing the same problem (or not depending on opionion) openstreetmap is facing currently too. (except that there is no unclear situation whether all contributors have to be attributed or not).
I believe that the mkgmap built-in styles can be licensed by any license (currently the GPLv2). This is OK because the styles are not copied to the output, but they are only rules for generating the output. That is also my point of view here. Neither are the style-files copied to the output nor are they internal to mkgmap (they are called up dynamically). Otherwise it wouldn't be legal to distribute maps and keeping the style-file closed source. But as soon as we start to distribute TYP files and other files that are literally copied to the output, it would be reasonable to use a different license or to grant a license exception, similar to what exists for the built-in run-time libraries of GCC (libgcc) and code generators such as compiler compilers (Flex, Bison, ANTLR, ...).
As long as the maps are distributed in seperated parts with an installer/program to assemble them for use the TYP file can be put under any license (the maps work without the TYP file too, and also another TYP file could be used instead). I think I will publish the style-file under CCBYSA 2.0 - even though I would prefer reuse to opensource their style-files too. My main concern is that Garmin map publishers (like Onroute) use large parts of my style-file to have better autorouting and produce closed source commercial maps. They currently do many things wrong (even though Onroute is the only one that ever gave autorouting for cyclists some thought). I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of my "openmtbmap".). I also assume Garmin map producers will start using invisible routable lines (which I first used) or even several invisible routable lines to overcome the shortcoming of the garmin turn-time-penalties. thanks for your comments, Felix
Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Felix, On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:31:19AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
My main concern is that Garmin map publishers (like Onroute) use large parts of my style-file to have better autorouting and produce closed source commercial maps. They currently do many things wrong (even though Onroute is the only one that ever gave autorouting for cyclists some thought).
Copyright only covers more or less verbatim copying, but not the copying of ideas. Patents would offer wider protection, but they are a very controversial topic ("software patents") and out of the reach of anything but deep-pocket corporations that can afford patent attorneys.
I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of my "openmtbmap".). I also assume Garmin map producers will start using invisible routable lines (which I first used) or even several invisible routable lines to overcome the shortcoming of the garmin turn-time-penalties.
They can be copying ideas from this mailing list already. I don't think that there is any way to prevent the copying. You would need an army of lawyers for that. Only big corporations can afford that. All we can do is to compete by quality. The general public is becoming increasingly more aware of OpenStreetMap and the independence from proprietary map vendors. I hope that it is a positive feedback loop: the map is good enough for some users, users will make it even better, it becomes good enough for even more users, and so on. Proprietary maps will never get accurate coverage of minor paths and the like. Not even cycleways, at least not here. So, most cyclists here should know to avoid buying maps. :-) Marko
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 09:30:26AM +0200, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
Proprietary maps will never get accurate coverage of minor paths and the like.
But they can get news coverage more easily than us. :-( A local news outlet just reported that "users of Nokia smart phones will get free maps according to Reuters and San Francisco Chronicle". That would be free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-freedom, of course. Nokia bought Navteq a couple of years ago. Marko
On 21.01.2010 08:30, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
Hi Felix,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:31:19AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
My main concern is that Garmin map publishers (like Onroute) use large parts of my style-file to have better autorouting and produce closed source commercial maps. They currently do many things wrong (even though Onroute is the only one that ever gave autorouting for cyclists some thought).
Copyright only covers more or less verbatim copying, but not the copying of ideas. Patents would offer wider protection, but they are a very controversial topic ("software patents") and out of the reach of anything but deep-pocket corporations that can afford patent attorneys.
I do know that. However they can cover some ideas but not a complete concept.
I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of my "openmtbmap".). I also assume Garmin map producers will start using invisible routable lines (which I first used) or even several invisible routable lines to overcome the shortcoming of the garmin turn-time-penalties.
They can be copying ideas from this mailing list already. I don't think that there is any way to prevent the copying. You would need an army of lawyers for that. Only big corporations can afford that. All we can do is to compete by quality. The general public is becoming increasingly more aware of OpenStreetMap and the independence from proprietary map vendors. I hope that it is a positive feedback loop: the map is good enough for some users, users will make it even better, it becomes good enough for even more users, and so on. Proprietary maps will never get accurate coverage of minor paths and the like. Not even cycleways, at least not here. So, most cyclists here should know to avoid buying maps. :-)
Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Felix Hartmann schrieb am 21.01.2010 02:31:
I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of my "openmtbmap".).
I can't really understand your "problem". For once, in my the eyes the ideas/concepts your are mentioning not so groundbraking, that nobody else is able to think of them. (Today they might still be good enough for a patent :-) I really admit your work, but i think the greatest part is not getting the ideas but getting everything done. So I would not say that somebody copied your ideas/concepts, i would rather say that they were inspired by your work. Above you write, that some of your concepts were forgotten by Garmin. So actually you are also copying their ideas :-) And as a second point, why do you worry about someone copying your work as closed source? It is certainly not nice, but is it really a problem? If you give away your maps for free (free beer as well as really free), what would change, if Garmin would sell identical maps for money? They will make some money, but you will not loose any money. I do not care if anybody earns some money with the aid of my free contributions, as long as my work is still available for free to other people. It migth look different, if you want to earn some money yourself with your maps. But then the problem would not be, to stop other companies yousing your work in a closed source manner, but to stop other people using your work at all. By the way, I think you could earn some money (not much but at least some), if you would sell ready to use flash-cards with your maps on ebay. You could sell them with the recquired free-to-copy license, since most buyers wouldn't bother about copying, if they could by an actual map for perhaps 10 or 15EUR. Gruss Torsten
participants (3)
-
Felix Hartmann -
Marko Mäkelä -
Torsten Leistikow