many parks, commercial areas, and graveyards seem to have 100% identical
geometries to OSM
Pre-fork or post-fork? That's one key question.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 15.09.2013 13:25, Simon Poole wrote:
a) some proof of this actually
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license.
Mine is that the license
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I've always understood that the intent of the
ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it.
Whose intent are we talking about, here
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote:
What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base
map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your
interpretation, the part about the content
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote:
And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless
the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the
map.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the
sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database,
in which case
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 02/02/11 18:49, Jonathan Harley wrote:
For print, yes, that's about the size of it.
I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to
paper or to a screen, changes the bits used
The
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the
instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does.
If you wrote a website which intentionally caused the computer of the
person visiting it to overheat
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or
neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM
is simply a database of facts,
Well I for one still
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is
that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts.
Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position
that
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is
that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts.
Do you think
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it
does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression
half of the idea/expression divide.
Ugh, sorry for the imprecise language (this is why I'm
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing!
To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too
restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in
the open source / community space
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and
'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data
sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU
You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to
authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current
licence terms.
What are the current license terms? Right now it means,
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years
time
Database rights only last 15 years, though, and facts can't be copyrighted.
___
legal-talk
stating about people thinking the data is
owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony
that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a
movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at
the end of it
Yes, I remember - he used
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
guaranteed a right
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Such an opt-out clause
would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot
where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it
at any time.
On the rest, we're going to
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.
It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-23 04:14, Anthony wrote:
I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear
license? This would be one point for them to clarify.
Good point. I think the discussion here
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would
then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted
to OpenStreetMap.
And how do believe they achieve that? Through
I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must
contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you
can't also contribute traced data to a fork.
After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from
openstreetmap.org(dump maybe)
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-22 01:24, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org
wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops
publishing under CC
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops
publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under
CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived
works
under any particular license, over and above what was already there.
That's probably a combination of the fact that Microsoft doesn't own
that right in
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it.
Then show why I'm wrong, don't say that I may be right in some
jurisdictions and you aren't sure if I'm right in others.
For example in Germany simple
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote
None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative
work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the
definition of that term.
It's extremly unlikely
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote:
What is the German equivalent
of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how
can you say it's equivalent?
Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions adaptation
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll
would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active
Also, the idea that the vote could be conducted via email is rather
humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the hanging chads in
that scenario.
I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any other
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either.
What would you suggest?
I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I
haven't already voted under
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I
haven't already voted under another account, and click Yes or No.
Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing
the vote could manually
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be.
2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling he's
crazy! - can you clarify what you mean?
It's unclear to me whether a 2/3
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
There's no such thing
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote:
We got new licences to choose from that countered
“Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget
We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and
do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors
(electorate).
demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.
WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand?
I do apologize. The formatting in the email I used made it appear that was a
quote from Anthony. I also apologize to Anthony.
I'm just more confused now.
The claim being made by you and Robert
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
you received it.
Share alike was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain
English, as If you
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
free and open. I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
(perhaps a
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different
terms
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
how active contributors are defined?
There's not a clear definition of how
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
in
some
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Anthony:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Please name the jurisdictions
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the data
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
I'm not sure what you mean by owns
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is
not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About
___
legal-talk
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. The copyright?
The database right? Something else?
I mean the database right. For the european database directive (which is a
protection for the investment into the database
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in
some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there
are quite a few). :P
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Or maybe Frederik can answer it:
http
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one
of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm
quite wary of collectivism
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example,
* license the data under a non-free or non-open license
Free according to whom? Open according to whom?
* license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
To change the CT, all they have to do is 1)
require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have
a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new
CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
equal footing with OSMF
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
the licence? It does happen you know :-).
Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be
adequately explained by
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language,
unintended consequences are unenforcible.
And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see
the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Personally I'm delighted that Bing is happy to work with us, and I think
their attitude to permitting tracing without claiming a share in any
(allegedly) resulting IP reflects very well on them when compared to Google
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 12/01/2010 02:31 PM, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org Isn't
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the prior written
consent from Microsoft.
I'm not sure
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's the fact that we have an actual documentation of the
permission to trace. Yahoo's is pretty much just an unwritten/informal
agreement.
Except that at the point we don't. At this point, we have an unclear
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
equal footing with OSMF
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:34 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Whereabouts is the prior written consent from Microsoft which would enable
us to trace and thus create derivative works?
David
[1] http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details
Isn't
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
fx99 wrote:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant
to OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Isn't the content the users provide just facts (at least the
coordinates, some tags could be questionable)?
I don't think it's quite that simple. If I draw a complex
intersection on a piece of paper, that's
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0.
They clearly are not, as of the 1.2 draft. Among other things, the
section 2 grants are expanded, to include database right or any
related right.
Maybe we should work on that bit then. Not give the individual an
opt-out right, but instead force OSMF to publish. Something like: As a
condition of this agreement, OSMF agrees not only to license the
database under the licenses given, but also to make the database
publicly available or so.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the
work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might
have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a
database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the
granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Picture yourself next to 100 people who
have come after you, who have taken what you have given to the project and
who have built on it, improved it, made it their project.
Do you *really* think it is right to say:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would sincerely ask
anyone who feels the desire to pull the rug from under the project's feet in
10 years time if the project doesn't do what one likes: please recosider,
and if you still cannot trust the project
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
How can we have the hubris to say we know what's best
for OSM in 10 years?
Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that.
On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony,
you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike to
which I replied:
On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't
covered by BY-SA.
Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL?
___
legal-talk
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the
better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.
If, however, you intend to protect our data by putting it under a
share-alike
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your
friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back
together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an
entirely separate issue.
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data
but you do get a licence to all copyright interest
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say
different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
However, this part remains: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You
hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received
As you have correctly pointed out
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You,
as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work
So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
No, the data contributed to OSM must be licensed to OSMF under the
contributor terms:
You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/17/10 04:26, Anthony wrote:
They left what process? The goal of the process was not to find a
license like the ODbL. The goal of the process was to address the sui
generis database right within the CC
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/17/2010 04:25 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
A bigger problem, in my mind, would be facilitating a fracturing of the
copyleft universe.
ODbL Produced Works may be BY-SA.
Possibly. But if so that BY-SA doesn't extend to
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone
tracing
from a Produced Work? I
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I release all my OSM work as
public domain anyway and believe that CC-BY-SA is a deeply inequitable
licence when applied to data.
I really don't get this. What is inequitable about CC-BY-SA? The
requirement to
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:23 AM, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
It strikes me as two issues - changing to ODbL and, separately, the inclusion
of a
clause in the CTs allowing a future unspecified relicensing by the OSMF. The
two
aren't, necessarily, interlinked.
And for some reason the part
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I really don't get this.
We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you
Why would you send an email to the list explaining that? By doing so
aren't you engaging with me
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If Creative Commons had been more friendly towards the data licensing issue,
a similar window could have been opened in a hypothetical CC-BY-SA 3.1
If Creative Commons wanted to support the export of sui generis
database
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The discussion started with the license change map
http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/, and someone said that the bits
that are red on the license change map will be deleted. That person was
asked to use would, not
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Kevin Sharpe
kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
I posted these questions to the Forum and it was suggested that I try here;
We wish to add to OSM data relating to electric vehicle charge point
locations and capabilities. However, it is not clear to me whether
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Kevin Sharpe
kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
In what jurisdiction?
People will be adding data worldwide.
Basically, I think you have three choices. 1) You consider your data
to be valuable enough to hire a lawyer to try to figure out a way to
keep people
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Kevin Sharpe
kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you
trying to restrict it?
We want the data to be available without restriction.
Okay, I misunderstood you, and I'm going to have to pass on
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys,
changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory
relicensing question. Should we revert their changes back to Amenity?
As another
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If one million
users each make a non-copyrightable contribution to OSM under CC-BY-SA then
I can take those one million contributions and use them in any way I want
because if they are not copyrightable then CC-BY-SA
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
