o/legal-talk to
"The list for discussion of all legal matters relating to Openstreetmap,
including licensing and copyright. For official information on the license from
the OSM Foundation, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence;
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @m
service. HOT would
need to set up tiles from a downloaded GeoTIFF.
Hope that clears things up.
Btw, would be good to simply set up a test with one of the SkyBox for good
GeoTIFFs, to see how it compares with Bing georeferencing and resolution.
BestMikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel
Hello
A few days ago I commented
But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for
ascertaining a
representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a
legally qualified opinion on
interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the
proposal
this issue. I hope that such can take shape
soon, so that the topic of geocoding and other topics can be efficiently and
finally resolved.
Sincerely
Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:04 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul
I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that
within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this
proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal
interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another
?
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:54 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding.
In a nutshell: geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, share alike does
not apply
) and I will clear up any confusion.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
To: Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com; Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Cc: OSMF License
, and then if all
seems ok, do it. Not to say, I wouldn't love to see an active and responsive
LWG that could provide guidance and help, but the OSMF just isn't operating at
that level. And in this specific case, there's really no issue to be concerned
about.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel
with geocoding is different. I agree, we need to take a serious
look at this, and have it clarified.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Rob smartt...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent
using GMaps is property of Google.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal
geocoding patient data, client data, suppliers data, members data
With this kind of sensitive private data, the database would not be
redistributed, hence not invoking share-alike.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Alex Barth
was at SOTM-US, but didn't talk to Carl or take part in the
ODbL-Geocoding BoF.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org;
talk
of thing in order to
release data. Such an agreement would never place additional restrictions on
the use of the data, beyond that it should be available to use, and only if
mappers choose to do so.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From
it's ok, in which case all
data could be brought in. The alternative would then be to exempt particular
POI
from conflation, or simply geocode them again using fully clear sources.
Thoughts?
Mikel
== Mikel Maron ==
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
My thoughts on Google MapMaker and OpenStreetMap, from their test release of
Kenya in April
http://brainoff.com/weblog/2009/04/01/1391
Basically, my reading of this very restrictive license is that it's not only
useless for OSM, but for most non-profit uses.
-Mikel
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
The answer lies in 4.9 (you may not sublicense the database). We often
sloppily say that if you make a derived work you must license it under
ODbL, but this is not the way ODbL is intended to work. The idea is
that the original licensor (OSMF) is
Hi Fredrik
Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the
public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take
the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from
17 matches
Mail list logo
