[OAM-talk] Fw: RE: Re: [Geodata] [crschmidt at metacarta.com: OAM Prototype]

[Christopher Lippitt]

Hi Chris,
I think this is a big issue that is going to define the future of OAM. I
agree that having multiple license levels will make OAM much more attractive
to many would be image providers, given that it will allow them to
contribute imagery with restrictive licensing (particularly in Europe where
tax payer imagery is routinely charged for). I was originally hoping that
OAM would be only for open license imagery, like it is now, but I can see
how this could keep OAM a much smaller and less visible project. I am not
sure of solution at this point, but I wanted to throw my two sense in that
we should try to keep as much of the imagery as possible down loadable and
usable only with only attribution of the source, in line with the spirit of
OSM. The more Open OAM is, the larger an impact it will have on the broader
imaging community.

Also, incredible work you've been doing.

Chris

On Dec 2, 2007 6:19 AM, <crschmidt at metacarta.com> wrote:

> This is a response to an email from Jo Walsh, who may not be on the
> OAM-talk
> list. Please direct your responses appropriately.
>
> Jo,
>
> I've removed the email from Antonio at IGN (for his privacy), and
> forwarded my response to the OAM-talk list, as I believe it is generally
> informative of my viewpoints on the project.
>
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Jo Walsh wrote:
> > i dropped your OAM notice to Antonio at IGN - he's heading up the team
> > that is getting 50cm imagery for the whole of Spain for (NC) re-use
> > next year - he responds with interest and with licensing questions
> > and also performance questions - [[PNOA ortophotos covering all Spain
> > implies 4 Tb in ecw format and a hugh cache to have a efficient WMS-C,
> > let's say at least more than 1Tb.]]
>
> We're not yet prepared to host that level of imagery. It's in the plan,
> but there's a lot of work to be done in building up the toolset and
> pipeline before it will be ready. That said, one of the very near term
> tasks for OAM is implementing the ability to load data into the map from
> a remote WMS. There are some technical limitations here, but they're on
> my todo list to fix.
>
> (For context, the original statement of the question was:
>
> > - Under what conditions are data published in AOM? Or in other words,
> > there is some mechanism to allow each agent to give information about
> > the usage conditions of their data?
> )
>
> The question as to whether there will be different restrictions
> available for different sources is that yes, I have a plan to do that.
> Specifically, I expect that OAM will, at some point in the future,
> provide the ability to create your own 'view' of the data, choosing
> things based on resolution, license, age, quality, etc. Once you create
> your own view, you would then be able to use this view in your own
> applications (either as a WMS, or a cached WMS, or something different).
> However, this does not exist yet, and it will take time to build. The
> most important thing from my opinion is to make it possible for users of
> OAM to use the data with *the fewest number of restrictions placed on
> it* as possible: which means that if the data is originally public
> domain, you should have the technical ability to use it under no
> restrictions, whereas if you're willing to accept attribution, you can
> do that, etc. Building one coherent view of the world doesn't mean that
> it should be the *only* view of the world, and the ability to choose
> which layers you're interested in is a key difference between a service
> like OAM and a service like Google Maps.
>
> I'd like to state that I would encourage *anyone* donating imagery to do
> so under a license that is *not* limited by anything other than
> attribution under the current licensing environment. There is some work
> being done to resolve this situation, but (so long as I have a voice in
> the project) the main OAM map will *not* contain any NC licensed data.
> The terms of the CC license with regard to non-commercial licensing are
> simply too broad (or at the very least, poorly established) such that
> each person considers the meaning of NC different -- and none of them
> allow me to, for example, use the imagery on my website, which is
> partially ad supported. Similarly, the terms of use with regards to -SA
> have what may be painful ramifications for mapping: A CC-By-SA license
> may mean that, for example, the data can't be used to create information
> for wikipedia, becuase CC-By-SA is incompatible with the GFDL.
>
> In general, I believe that there are only two usable licenses for
> geodata available at the moment:
>
>  * CC-Attribution license
>  * Something along the lines of the "WFTPL":
>   http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING
>   "0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO."
>
> Anything else is likely to suffer the law of unintended consequences, as
> users of the data who you would like to encourage find the licensing
> terms overly restrictive for their particular use case.
>
> Additionally, there was a quesiton posed about OAM being a 'view only
> application', and I can state that although this is the case currently,
> I have already received questions about exporting data for use offline,
> and the concepts for that have been percolating in my head. It is my
> expectation that there will be many datasources for which the holder of
> the data is unwilling to have the source data downloaded, but is willing
> to share the resulting imagery or reprocessed imagery resulting from
> that. I'm not sure if this expectations is unfounded or not. In any
> case, I have an expectation that there will, at some point in the
> future, be a way to build up a multi resolution database and export it
> as a file usable in 'local' gis applications.
>
> Lastly, there was a question posed about whether OAM is really
> going to be able to perform well. I'll state that currently, the machine
> that OAM is running on is sitting with lots of idle CPU, but there are
> other hardware limitations -- specifically, disk and network -- which we
> are working to resolve. I had no expectations that OAM would be 'open
> for business' as quickly as it was, and it has suffered some growing
> pains as a result of being designed for rapid development rather than
> for deployment. However, it is my belief that in the long term, by a
> combination of the incredible work put forth by telascience in causing
> more resources to magically appear and Murphy's law, we will be able to
> create a service which will scale to the users it gets.
>
> Thanks for the information, and looking forward to seeing more.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christopher Schmidt
> Web Developer
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openaerialmap.org
> http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
>



-- 
Christopher D. Lippitt
SDSU-UCSB Joint Doctoral Student
Department of Geography
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
Email: lippitt at geog.ucsb.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://openaerialmap.org/pipermail/talk_openaerialmap.org/attachments/20071202/278acca6/attachment.html