On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
this could mean that
anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly
have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
snapshot time where someone cares to request
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I
perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?
Not at all; I am still reading through the draft, and have exactly the same
concern.
It may be I have misunderstood how this is intended to apply, but I
2009/3/1 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I
perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?
Nope, not at all, I'm exceptionally concerned about the
John Wilbanks wrote:
(although I find the idea that freedom can only come from the
barrel of a license deeply depressing).
That's CC Zero out of the running then.
If Big Company decides to run a mechanical turk contest on Amazon to
extract facts from your DB one at a time, do they violate
I am proposing the update the text on the Use Cases page. I intend to
merge some of the different Use Cases and introduce some new ones
based on the problematic areas we are exploring on the list. I will
also tweek the wording to make it clearer for the next legal review
(especially the
(although I find the idea that freedom can only come from the
barrel of a license deeply depressing).
That's CC Zero out of the running then.
Actually no. This is a slightly wonky lawyer debate about semantics, but
we think tools like CC0 should be called *waivers* and not *licenses*.
John Wilbanks wrote:
This is why if you peruse the CC0 site, you'll see it referred to as a
legal tool and not a license. It's a small thing, but an important thing
to remember. Conflating the waiving of rights with the licensing of
rights is what we're trying to avoid in this context.
Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
With the GPL, the right to request the source is attached to receiving
and using the binary. Withe the AGPL it is attached to being a user of
the service. You can't just wander by and say hey! please can I have
the source?, you have to be a user of the
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
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
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:34:59PM +, Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be possible for someone to summarise the License Plan thread
on Talk when it has come to a conclusion? Personally I am finding the
intensity of license discussion a bit much the moment and would prefer
to
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
We need to clarify this once and for all: Where exactly in the following
typical rendering chain does the thing cease to be a database in our
definition?
* download (section of) OSM data
* make changes to OSM data
* render OSM data into vector graphics format
On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:34:59PM +, Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be possible for someone to summarise the License Plan thread
on Talk when it has come to a conclusion? Personally I am finding the
intensity of license discussion a bit
On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
I think these Use Cases are going to end up being twins of an
eventual
FAQ that I imagine will exist.
I am starting to think that perhaps the license should be
accompanied by
a kind of interpretation document
Hi,
Dair Grant wrote:
It may be I have misunderstood how this is intended to apply, but I think
both 4.6a and 4.6b end up making derivative databases (effectively any
mechanical processing of the original content whatsoever, IMO) problematic.
In many cases, generating a file containing all
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to
give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you
waive all right to ownership of your edits.
This needs a safeguard to allow for email
On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
Russ Nelson schrieb:
[...], or your email address
stops working, you waive all right to ownership of your edits.
Probably about as legally binding as posting a note on the site that
says By reading this you agree to sacrifice your
I see your point. Data potentially infringing if removed now could be
recreated now, making later bookkeeping easier.
On Mar 1, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
I don't see much value in removing the data now on the chance that
we might have
to remove it
Hi,
rich...@weait.com wrote:
I've attempted to illustrate ways to use the OpenStreetMap database under
ODbL and comply with the ODbL obligations.
The box at the end of the Produced Work stream says: Share Alike is
required if database is derivative. Attribution is always required. -
It
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Not so, it turns out; the Produced Work freedom allows us to combine
OSM data *only* with other data whose license does not prohibit the
addition of constraints, because ODbL mandates that we add the reverse
engineering
20 matches
Mail list logo
