[OSM-legal-talk] PGS coastline
My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change? Asking on mailing list, since there should be about 32 other accounts used for the import and controlled by other people, so presumably we want them all to make a consistant decision. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PGS coastline
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I tried to search the list archives before posting but couldn't see anything about this. The problem is people noticing non-existant streets on other maps and wasting time to only find out that it doesn't exist, not that it wasn't mapped. Draw a bounding box around it and mark it as all roads complete in OSM? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Will there be some OSM-specific privacy implications not covered in the generic policy? e.g. when people use openstreetmap.org, they are potentially revealing their home/work/holiday locations, their routes to work, the pubs they visit (assuming their first OSM edit is to add their regular haunts) and many other things not collected by 'normal' websites just seems like the sort of thing a privacy policy ought to mention... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions because you mapped them as PD. So we can do whatever we want with the canal data without having to consult anyone. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the presses with a largely NPE-derived map of the Chesterfield Canal in, then. I can count on two hands the number of British canals that have moved in the last _century_. The Aire Calder was rerouted because of some mining subsidence. The Ribble Link is new. The Falkirk Wheel caused a realignment of the FC/Union junction. The Worcester Birmingham now swerves to avoid the M42. Er... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22362869.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: OJ W wrote: the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license? You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data base, a distinction that has not yet been resolved) restrict copying of the image. This is essential if we want to give users the chance to combine OSM material with other, more restrictively licensed material, into images or other products. Exactly, so the ODbL has a political choice to license OSM map images as PD (that can trivially be made uncopiable) where previously we guaranteed that all map images would be freely copiable. Whether this is essential hasn't been explained - it certainly isn't essential to the creation of free maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Plan discussion on talk...
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Can we also ensure that any issues that we identify on the list get onto the Open Issues page on the wiki. In that way we can get the legal folk to only review the wiki page and not the whole conversation. I assume they will also be responding to comments on the co-ment.net page, so we don't need to copy the discussion from there onto the wiki? http://www.co-ment.net/text/844/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
What's the purpose of S5.0 (disclaimer of moral rights), especially since the plain meaning of that section appears to differ from the 'attribution' element of the current license (not that I think attribution is a great idea with so many contributors, but some bulk-data donors include attribution in their license to us) More importantly, is S5.0 still meaningful if it doesn't apply to everyone? e.g. imagine its purpose is to reduce attribution requirements to this is OSM data' rather than requiring 2 million names and pseudonyms on the back of each map (this being a guess as to its purpose, hence 1st question). Is it even worth bothering if we still have to list the names of anyone who contributed from an area where they don't waive their moral rights? suppose the I accept this new licence tickbox is implemented and I tick it while on holiday in Algeria. Will I then get the opportunity to demand that all OSM-derived products list me as the author, and object to anything which portrays the map in a manner I'm not happy with? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
