Hi Simon,
Thanks for your response.
your terms and conditions don't really make sense, for CC-BY-SA data
Why so?
I keep the data free, the users can spread the data as they see fit.
In other words, I don't care if companies will grab data from individuals
that post their data on their
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
should it
On 17/04/11 09:51, Florian Lohoff wrote:
But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at
the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of
copyright is a no go for some.
GCC has hardly been unsuccessful, though.
Apache either.
- Rob.
signature.asc
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa,
especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the
user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes
would matter just as much.
For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing
data
Eugene,
On 04/17/2011 06:39 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Some people have problems with section 2 of the proposed CT because of
granting of rights to OSMF.
[...]
Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
should it be a big problem for OSM contributors
True.
Granting rights to a central body (but not
your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
communities.
Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related
to the legal system in this world. Many people just don't want to
be involved in that. We click everyday on
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under
CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to
release the data *in the future* under
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his
own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So
this should be less problematic than the FSF situation.
That is like writing a
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:55 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa,
The definition of a derivative work is pretty clear. ... a work
based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works,
..., or any other
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:06 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his
own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's
Hi,
On 04/17/2011 10:51 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at
the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of
copyright is a no go for some.
Firstly, in the CT case we're not talking transfer of copyright.
Secondly, I
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a
deriviative work under the terms
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'd hate to see someone go and say we don't want your contribution. But if
any mapper really believes that at some point in the future, they will want
to withdraw their data from OSM because 2/3 of mappers choose a free
Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs
stipulate the opposite.
Simon
Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor
Am 17.04.2011 11:59, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
Granting rights to a central body (but not
your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
communities.
Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related
to the legal system in this world.
I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM
servers is a form of publishing in terms of copyright.
If you create a work and never publish it (in other words, nobody else
will see it), then it is not yet copyrighted. Even works for hire are
not copyrighted until the hiring
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM
servers is a form of publishing in terms of copyright.
Indeed, it's the act of distribution. The question is, if the user
uploads a derivative work
On 17 April 2011 11:39, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor
terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach
of the CC-BY-SA license.
Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that
content
On 17 April 2011 11:12, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF?
Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might be implicit.
You are simply replacing that fuzzy contract with a, not perfect, but at
least with most terms
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked a similar question in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html
and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is
that most likely your contribution in this case
Thank you for your polite qualification.
Among a thousand words you point out the only opposite.
If I grant, I decide how and when, not OSM(F).
The whole process of ODBL and CT
is all about data-protection and not about free data.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole
You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF?
Will you sent me a copy ?
OSMF did not even exist when I signed up, so I doubt if there is
another agreement then a single sided.
And I still doubt that OSMF is representing the community
in a way there statutes say.
Gert
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked a similar question in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html
and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is
that most likely your contribution in this case
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not quite
sure I understand this one. What do you mean by upload .. .under a
On 17/04/11 14:17, Francis Davey wrote:
Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other
licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s).
Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says
You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which
On 17 April 2011 14:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Have you bought this up on cc-community?
If not please could you. :-)
That hadn't occurred to me. I'm afraid I tend to be reactive - time's
a bit limited for anything else. Also I assume they have expensive (or
at least skilled)
Mikel, stop trying to smooth talk.
The CT says fundamentally nothing about GPS and entering data, but
talks just
about transferring rights to an arbitrary group of individuals called
OSMF, members of the osm community, (currently)with and (in the future?)
without
the best intents for the
And I am perfectly happy with that
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 15:14
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the
CT)
It is exactly the issue that I
Assumptions, assumptions.
There is no legal relation between me and OSMF (full stop).
I provide all my contributions as PD, and I want OSM to
do the same to the world.
I do not need a license nor a CT to contribute.
And if OSMF (whoever they may be) wants that to be the case, I step out.
A PD
On 04/17/2011 04:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
And if OSMF (whoever they may be)wants that to be the case, I step out.
That seems a reasonable resolution.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to
those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a
little clearer.
Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a
CC-BY-SA license.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to
those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a
little clearer.
Suppose there is
Hi,
Eldad Yamin wrote:
1. If FS will buy POI from a third party and those POI are under a
license that isn't CC-BY-SA
a. Can FS show the 3rd party POI along with the POI that are under
CC-BY-SA on the OSM map?
Yes, certainly. CloudMade does that, or at least used to do
On 17 April 2011 18:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
2. Has the OSMF any commercial intentions ? I cannot imagine that OSMF
want to sell the OSM-database to anyone (??!); or is the following
phrase meant to transfer (sub-license) the right for
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 19:29, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please?
What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously?
And in what sense you mean can?
Thanks Grant,
I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
unclear:
What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor
terms mean:
From CT 1.2.4/2
These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude
any
field of endeavour.
As written
On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
Thanks Grant,
I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
unclear:
What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor
terms mean:
From CT 1.2.4/2
39 matches
Mail list logo
