User talk:Ujos

Hello Ujos, why did you remove 'router' from the GraphHopper wiki? Removing 'navi' is okayish but replacing just with 'library' makes it too broad IMO

Hi Karussell, I think `genre=navi` and `genre=router` are more designed for standalone applications. If you want to specify if this library supports navigation, just specify navToPoint tag. If you want to specify that library can calculate route, add calculateRoute tag.

--ujos (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

where can I find these tags and where can I see that it works ː) ?

--Karussell (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

See here: Template:Software. BTW, looks like tags `navigating=yes` and `routing=yes` are even better. Unfortunately the only way to check it is to use Osm_Software_Catalog application. Online version of this application is not up to date.

--ujos (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ORS

Hello Ujos, why did you create the wiki page Open Route Service ?

There is already a wiki page about this web service, see OpenRouteService, so your fresh one is a duplicate. Removing? Greets, --Stephan75 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know that it exists. OpenRouteService does not have Template::Software. That is why I did not find it. I will move Template::Software from Open Route Service to OpenRouteService and after that you can remove my version.

--ujos (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

done! You can also ask on the OSM forum or via any other channel when you are not sure whether we already have a wiki page about a software or a web service ... I know them almost all in the wiki :-) --Stephan75 (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Would be good to find automatically all Software pages without Template::Software block.

--ujos (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Software Catalog

Hi Ujos, please could you add one or two sentences description to your new link at Software? Is it a executable program? On which OSs does it run? Please mention this. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC) In the meantime I had a peek into the zip from sourceforge: seems to be .exe (Windows) and needs .NET 4.0. Also, I did not see any license info for the wiki content (you seem to have included the source code). I did not look into the .exe (I use no Windows). Please ensure that the license for the wiki content is respected. A last issue: are you aware of the issues with sourceforge – see wikipedia:SourceForge#Controversies? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I edited the link from an extern on to a wiki link, as we already have a wiki page for Osm Software Catalog ... but IMHO that wiki page needs more content, what Aseerel4c26 is asking for. --Stephan75 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Stephan75! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aseerel4c26, thank you for comments. And Stephan75 thanks for link update. I've added more description for this application to OSM Wiki. Added license to package. I'm not aware of issues related to Sourceforge but from time to time I check download links. I did not saw issues like described under the link wikipedia:SourceForge#Controversies. --Ujos 9:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates! :-) However, you have added OsmSoftwareCatalog/OpenStreetMap License.txt which contains the ODbL text, but if I understand correctly you do not use OSM (geographic) data. The wiki's text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. See the footer of each wiki page. Images can have different licenses (I do not know if you use images). In addition to making the license text somehow accessible to the user's of your application they need to be made aware that the program's content is available under this license. You should at least mention it in the program's about window (if you have something). I hope I could clarify a bit. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Ujos 5:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!, nearly fine! :-) In /MainForm.Designer.cs instead of "this.toolStripStatusLabel1.ToolTipText = "Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.";" use "Content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ , content authors: see the history feature of the source wiki.openstreetmap.org pages.";. This is nearly complying with CC-by-sa. I say nearly because taken strictly this may not be enough to satisfy the conditions of the license (see section 4c - "give the Original Author credit"). I am not a lawyer.

And I found out why you used the ODbl, see my comment on Talk:OpenStreetMap_License. We need to fix this... --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --Ujos (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:7 ways main.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified February 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Added note that image is downloaded from Google Play

--ujos (talk) 9:52, 2 Feb 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:BT747-DeviceSettings.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified February 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Added GPL

--ujos (talk) 9:52, 2 Feb 2022 (UTC)