I moved the multiple licensing site out of beta. You cannot not revoke
licenses once they are accepted. I hope it will be useful.
http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/
Tim
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 27/06/11 09:12, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I appreciate the fact that you work with TimSC. I look forward to being able
to read the page http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/
(I do not want to click Decline at the moment, because I am still undecided,
and reading this page
for ideas for improvements of the legal
issues. Any thoughts?
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
do not include any obligation for OSMF to ensure future
licences have an attribution clause, and *that* is the problem I'm
trying to highlight
TimSC
[1]http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011458.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
a feeling I will be accused of being cryptic. I have tried to
explain my actions as best as I can.
Regards,
TimSC
[1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_119fr26kqdz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
to OSMF having a mandate?
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
for that duty? The OSMF just assuming
powers is what is at the core of the question of mandate.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 01/10/10 13:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
TimSC wrote:
It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the
community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more
fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the
mailing list!
Seriously?
Seriously
: April 2010.
... as if OS Opendata was the only data that was imported or traced into
OSM...
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
you don't waste your
time responding. And I am trying to engage OSMF using official channels
on this issue too [2], but that debate has not attracted much interest yet.
TimSC
[1]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-September/004431.html
[2]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
Assuming GPS tracks have some legal protection in some legal
jurisdictions, does anyone care to take a stab at answering my original
question? :)
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
investment in obtaining the data, don't
database rights come into play?
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
on using the existing contributor term document
[2], can you answer my question on allowed licensing of produced works,
as stated in my previous email?
Regards,
TimSC
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
[2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3
On 27/07/10 20:25, Grant
upgrade?
For reasons I have already stated, I am anti-ODbL. But my support will
be pragmatic, depending on the likely outcome of support or refusal.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 24/07/10 16:49, SteveC wrote:
Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Steve
That's ad hominem tu quoque.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque
TimSC
? Perhaps
some clarification would improve the situation.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
wondered if anyone had thoughts on this?
TimSC
PS The background to my views is partly summarized here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003523.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
- 150,000 people each with a veto is
not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to change.
If that were true, the OBdL licensing would definitely fail.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
the question might ask in a poll is far
from obvious.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
-BY by Ordnance Survey.
Brian
That is my interpretation as well. I already raised this issue with the LWG. The good
news is this saves me having to worry about the relicensing if I must say no
because of a legal issue.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal
Commons agrees with me). Of course, it would not be as comprehensive as
an SA-licensed OSM, but it would be more legally predictable.
Rant concluded!
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
Frederik Ramm wrote:
/ OSM is not essentially anything at its core. It is different things
to // different people.
/
I'm talking about the sentence that defines OSM at the top of our Wiki
page, which in all likelihood has been there in this form when most of
us signed up.
As if that
Frederik Ramm wrote:
TimSC wrote:
/ What is the point in paragraph 4.3, if it can be easily side stepped?
/
We have a well working culture of attribution in science, where you
usually quote the source you took something from, but not the source
behind the source behind the source.
Yes
be a problem. (See the second last paragraph of
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-April/003294.html
) Does anyone in the LWG have a view on that issue?
Regards,
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
. :)
After Monday, comments to the wiki please, unless this concern has been
well and truly put to rest.
TimSC
=== Impact on Transitioning to ODbL If Significant Minority No Vote ===
A concern with the implementation plan, not ODbL. As I see it, there are
two separate issues:
* Is OBdL acceptable
might advise to play it safe on legal issues,
but there is always a possibility someone (not necessarily me) will
start tracing maps with ambiguous copyright status. A solution is to
resolve this issue head on. Is it possible to get professional legal
advice on this?
Regards,
TimSC
[1]
http
27 matches
Mail list logo
