Hi all,
As the licence change draws on, we will inevitably be looking at remapping
objects touched by a decliner.
I'm interested in how we (as users) tackle something like this:
user A (agrees) surveys and maps
user B (agrees) refines geometry and tags
user C (agrees)
- Original Message -
From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM,
John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes:
On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaakko@... wrote:
But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of
anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but
has only marked it with, say,
David,
My point was to note that being influenced by, being (somewhat) derived from
and being a derivativer work are all different things. Period.
Additionally I wanted to describe an example where one mapper goes about and
produces a simple yet copyrighted work (via arm-chair mapping) and
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world
can be classified as creative work,
as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his
effort, and any deviation is
Hi,
John Smith writes:
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So
for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way,
i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object.
The
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and
re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from
incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and
pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean?
Nothing. But assuming good
