On 12 December 2011 13:58, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided
not to change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector.
Some ways have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up
to seven
On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even
On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
Terms.
[citation needed]
Very useful. I note that currently only 256 of the first 10,000 users are
signed up only 1.5% for the first 100,000. It would be great to see what
work the other people did and of we have the important ones. I realise that
we are still in the voluntary phase but the numbers do seem pretty low.
On 21 Sep 2009, at 10:30, Ed Avis wrote:
Good work! This must mean that if we see Ordnance Survey maps in
secondhand
shops with a copyright date of 1958 or earlier, we should buy them
and start
scanning them in.
(I know about the npemaps site; is there some other collection of
On 19 Sep 2009, at 04:38, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 23:19 -0500,
tele...@hushmail.com wrote:
My question is what type of attribution is appropriate? I have no
problem informing my end-users where I get the data. More than
happy to do that. However, do I need to attribute
On 15 Sep 2009, at 00:59, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
TimSC wrote:
The next question that occurs is can OS
reverse their view or is an FOI binding in some way.
I'd say they can probably always backtrack, but they cannot blame you
for taking this answer as face value and start using OOC
On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:13, SteveC wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/8/17 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com:
You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act
as a
record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some
problems
On 13 May 2009, at 01:36, Matt Amos wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
...and
Peter Miller's concerns are legit: If you are the licensor, then,
under
4.4.d...
Licensors may authorise a proxy to determine compatible licences
under
On 12 May 2009, at 04:13, Matt Amos wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
wrote:
I have just concluded an email discussion with Jordan following our
lawyers review of 1.0 who has answered some points but is now saying
that he would need someone
On 12 May 2009, at 08:00, Simon Ward wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:14:49AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then
introducing it to a large jurisdiction without
On 11 May 2009, at 23:43, Matt Amos wrote:
the OSMF LWG recently had a couple of calls with Clark Asay, who has
generously agreed to give OSMF legal advice concerning the new
license. i've attached the write up of the first of the calls, in
which we went over a series of short questions that
On 7 May 2009, at 02:36, SteveC wrote:
Hi
We've put together a practical definition for the OSMFs point of view
on what a substantial extract is, or isn't
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_Defined
And we'd like help similarly with building a practical
I have done some work on the Substantial Defined wiki article creating
an introduction to the issue and linking to the Use Cases page where
there is discussion of the issue.
I have also created links from the Use Case page and the Open Issues
page from the relevant sections to this article
not ODC, some are minor and can in our opinion be ignored and some
remain.
We should be in a position to publish the results tomorrow.
Regards,
Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On 27 Apr 2009, at 20:33, Mike Collinson wrote:
The Open Data Commons have announced their release schedule as
follows.
Wed 29th Apr (next wed): public release of 1.0 RC (Release Candidate)
Wed 6th May (following wed): comments period on 1.0 RC close
Wed 13th May (following wed): 1.0
On 23 Apr 2009, at 19:42, SteveC wrote:
Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial'
means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged
around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. Here's the
first important bit relevant to this in the ODbL:
in practice happy days
Regards,
Peter
At 02:44 PM 13/03/2009, Peter Miller wrote:
I have put the legal review we have received for the current license draft
on the wiki. I have organised it so that we can comment and discuss the
issues after each of the points on the wiki page
/Licensing_Working_Group_Meetings
Regards,
Peter Miller
Cheers
Andy
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing
On 7 Mar 2009, at 00:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I did something for which those who cleaned up Use Cases might hate
me;
I pulled in three major items from Open Issues into a new section
called Definitions on the Use Cases page. They are not use cases
proper, but reading the use cases I
On 6 Mar 2009, at 11:07, 80n wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, graham gra...@theseamans.net wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I believe the Foundation intends to give a vote *only* to those
who were
members in good standing as of January 23rd so your few days had
better
be 40-ish if
On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:11, 80n wrote:
I may have got this all wrong but it seems to me that Produced Works
are potentially compatible with most licenses, but are not
compatible with most share alike licenses. I hope this isn't right
and that someone can explain the flaws in my
On 2 Mar 2009, at 07:38, Gustav Foseid wrote:
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
any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb
09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been
making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they
publish them to help in this process.
Regards,
Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd
Bye
Frederik
On 2 Mar 2009, at 09:30, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb
09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been
making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they
publish them to help in
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
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
I have reworked the main Open Database Licence page (and renamed it)
so that it provides an useful introduction to the whole license
background and the current position to a first time reader.
I have bumped the detailed content from the existing page to a new page.
Check out the page here
I have been through the wiki pages that relate to the ODbL and updated
them where I can.
I have updated the name of the license to OdBL on all pages (I think).
I have updated the links to the license itself to point to
OpenDataCommons not OpenContentLawyer in all cases (I think).
I have
On 7 Feb 2009, at 21:09, SteveC wrote:
Albertas - we will look urgently at this.
Thanks. Please also follow up the report by Sarah Manley from CM that
the Belarus import is suspect. I forwarded her email from talk to
legal-talk on the 14th Jan, but am not aware that any action has been
On 25 Jan 2009, at 12:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
sward wrote:
By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts
for review, OSMF have forced the process to involve rounds
of consultation.
It's not OSMF's licence. It is a third-party licence which OSM is
considering and on
On 25 Jan 2009, at 12:12, SteveC wrote:
On 24 Jan 2009, at 21:09, Peter Miller wrote:
Depending upon the precise circumstances this duty not to accept
benefits could be relevant in the case of the Foundation. Presumably
Steve Coast Will receive some form of benefit from his other company
) think that no one else should
be able to comment on the license, notable Peter Miller (director and
shareholder in ITO) and Frederic Ramm (director and shareholder in
Geofabric) who have asked repeated for access on legal-talk. Doesn't
sound right to me given that CM, ITO and Geofabric
On 24 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Rob Myers wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
remove your data shortly
On 24 Jan 2009, at 13:11, Dair Grant wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
Is there not a large potential conflict of interest between SteveC
in relation
to his driving this change within the Foundation and also being a
director of
a company that could well benefit from the OSM project
On 24 Jan 2009, at 20:26, Grant Slater wrote:
Liz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me)
who's
listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict
of
interest.
That's the way Australian law
the foundation
posts on this list regularly at all - do keep it up!
Regards,
Peter
Best,
Mikel
From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:36:47 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal
On 24 Jan 2009, at 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
thank you for making the December minutes available. From them I
see
that you're already having your next meeting today.
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its
On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com:
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 -
On 12 Jan 2009, at 14:52, Rob Myers wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
wrote:
There does however appear to be something in the UK about 'fair
dealing'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_the_United_Kingdom
It seems
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sarah Manley sa...@cloudmade.com
Date: 13 January 2009 21:14:47 GMT
To: t...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Spam] [OSM-talk] data import in Belarus
Dear All,
I am writing on behalf of someone I met at a LUG meeting I spoke at
who is concerned that the data
As you may know a number of us are focusing on mapping the Gaza Strip
at present.
We have now collected a good body of information on Gaza that is
copyright to someone or other. We have identified further sources that
don't make any copyright statement. Details here:
On 9 Jan 2009, at 15:49, Brian Quinion wrote:
We are of course also awaiting confirmation that all trademark
applications have successfully been transfered into the foundation's
name (they were initial made in SteveC's own name). I hope that this
transfer will have been confirmed when the
Ok, so here we are in 2009. No new licence (it was promised by Xmas
08), no word update on the current status of the licence on this list
during December, no updates to the ODL pages on the wiki and no
minutes from the December Foundation directors meeting available on-
line yet.
I have:
It does concern me that the only people discussing the licence are not
officially included in the consultation process at all and it makes it
all seem less useful than it should be. We have also not had any
official comment on any of the questions raised on the list recently
from the
On 10 Dec 2008, at 23:33, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Peter,
Peter Miller wrote:
Where is the official input from the foundation to all this?
Lawyers or laymen, we cannot expect that people come up with
official
answers to our questions within a day - much less can we assume
The August of September minutes have been published. Thank you.
Fyi, the draft minutes of the latest meeting are behind password
authentication. Can the requirement for authentication be removed to make it
generally accessible? I don't know if I have a password as a foundation
member, but I
,
Peter Miller
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
The minutes referred to in the post below don't appear to mention the
trademark application. I can't find a reference to it in other minutes
either. Am I missing something?
Regards,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
I have done some edits to the Open Data Licence Page. I have
1) Created a 'See Also' section with links to other related pages (some
of which were listed previously in the intro paragraph)
2) Edited the criticism section to make it clearer, to remove detail
and link to other places
I have given the 'brief and use cases' page a bit of a tidy up over the past
day and moved a lot of the content around.
I have:
1) Put the Use Cases ahead of the brief, because the Use Cases seem to
be getting most of the attention
2) Re-ordered the Use Cases to put the most common
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Collinson
Sent: 31 October 2008 16:47
To: OSM; legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Spam] [OSM-legal-talk] [Announcement] new mailing list: legal-
general
After some requests
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I have added an extra use case on the click-through topic, basically
saying that we'd
like to avoid having to set up a tightly controlled environment where
everyone has to make sure to only pass the data on to people who have
agreed to some legal document beforehand.
I have just noticed that SteveC created a wiki page outlining his proposed
process for implementing the ODBL Licence about a month ago. Here it is:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License/Timeline
Does this make sense to people? This is good but it does raise various
Don't set up too much of your own structure just yet, because it is very
well possible that it makes sense to fly under the flag
OpenStreetMap/PD once things are a bit clearer, but you cannot
possibly expect many from OSM to endorse the thing when so little is
clear about it... personally, I
What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense
to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be
confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all
I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g.
deciding about tags,
to know a great deal
about the subject. One of the outputs from this process will be a set of
informed recommendations and observations which ITO will make available to
the OSM community and to the foundation to help in the licence drafting
process.
Regards,
Peter Miller
CEO, Ito World Ltd
:36:39PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
I was really signalling that I had got the Brief and Use Cases into a
form
where I was happy with them and where I thought they covered the issues
raised but needed confirmation re that from others.
The way you phrased it made it sound final even
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
Sent: 13 October 2008 00:14
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
Mike
I have updated the wiki 'brief' to reflect a number of issues raised in the
past few days.
1) I have removed all references to 'public' in the brief and now ensure
that Derived Database are distributed at least as widely as the end-user
experience itself and that others are free to distribute it
I notice that the conversation has moved on from issues around Derivative
Databases to factual/copyright data. Can I confirm that we have agreement on
the previous point re Derivative DBs?
Can I suggest:
1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the
martial changes have
sections (4.4,
4.4c..) - are those sections in the new license, and where can they been
seen?
BR,
Kari
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: 07
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
Sent: 06 October 2008 13:39
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is
publication/distribution?
Frederik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
Sent: 06 October 2008 16:08
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license: What is
publication/distribution?
Peter Miller
:54PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
I have added the brief to the wiki here. Notice that I have also created
a
'Use Cases' section heading where we can add key example uses of the
data
which we can use to validate the final licence.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 09:00:22 +0200
From: Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please enable commercial use
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain;
) Test the licence via the use cases using the agreed mechanisms.
5) Recommend the licence for adoption by the community.
Regards,
Peter Miller
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
68 matches
Mail list logo
