Just learned about https://openbeta.io/

Neat climbing community and map where folks can describe the routes.

Even has a fediverse instance https://community.openbeta.io/

#climbing #OpenStreetMap #OSM #fediverse

There is a lot of neat stuff about this #OpenBeta platform, but already I'm sad to see that they are scraping other platforms and appear to be relicensing the content to CC0.
Their discord is full of discussion where they debate whether that's even legal.

So, I'll be avoiding OpenBeta for now.

Even if there are paid features, it seems https://www.mountainproject.com is the active community.

#climbing #opensource #legal #license #mountainproject

@vbatts@fosstodon.org perhaps before you judge too harshly, you should read the EFF piece on the matter

The debate on the Discord centred around the moral and ethical implications, which are far more nuanced.

@devnull yeah, it's messy. And I'm mixed feelings on the whole matter. I don't think the scraping is completely unencumbered, but onX is gross to be asserting such claims on the user contributed content.
Someone shared with me https://12ft.io/https://www.climbing.com/news/mountain-project-openbeta-and-the-fight-over-climbing-data-access/ as well for background.

#climbing #data #opensource #OpenBeta #onx #mountainproject

@vbatts@fosstodon.org I can't disagree that it's messy, and I do understand the ethical concern. I personally believe in OpenBeta's mission, and I like to think that climbers' intentions are generally to contribute open and free information to the broader climbing community. I believe hosting that data on OpenBeta supports that end, and I believe OpenBeta does a good job of spreading information (for free) to the climbing community. As such, I do not believe it is unethical or "stealing." It might be stealing if that information were no longer accessible or if it gave OpenBeta some monetary or competitive advantage. But it doesn't. They're non-profit, they're not competing.

You're obviously allowed to form your own opinions, but as an advocate and supporter for OpenBeta, I want to reiterate that OpenBeta's main mission is to provide open, free access to information for all. The more information is accessible, the better things are for everyone.

@bean I totally get that spirit and intentionality.
Which is only made more poignant by onX is acting.
Even if it was the spirit of every contributor, a re-licensing requires their consent.
Even among already free and open source software, it is unacceptable for a new party to unilaterally relicense others' contributions.

@vbatts@fosstodon.org regarding the question of re-licensing, I was curious to see if OpenBeta's application of the CC0 license to content retrieved from MP was something the Creative Commons has had to address in the past.

Funny enough, I did find this in the FAQ, which seems to apply quite directly!:

May I apply a CC license to my work if it incorporates material used under fair use or another exception or limitation to copyright?

Yes, but it is important to prominently mark any third party material you incorporate into your work so reusers do not think the CC license applies to that material. The CC license only applies to the rights you have in the work. For example, if your CC-licensed slide deck includes a Flickr image you are using pursuant to fair use, make sure to identify that image as not being subject to the CC license. For more information about incorporating work owned by others, see our page about marking third party content. Read more considerations for licensors here.

So @viet, while I'm not a lawyer, perhaps if a route/climb contained material from MP, a declaration that xyz route contained material not subject to CC0 would need to be added.

That's made a great deal harder given that the data retrieved from MP might've been updated and changed in the meantime, so some thought would need to be put in to address how much of that original content is required in order to add the declaration.