On 19 April 2011 01:27, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Where? The only reference I see to sublicense is You may not sublicense
the Work.
See my earlier remarks. 4(b) permits the distribution (amongst other things)
of a Derivative Work under a licence (which might not be a CC licence) other
On 18 April 2011 02:13, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Presumably they would point out that the incorrect part of your
reasoning is that Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and
cannot be anything else.
Redistribution under a license is not sublicensing. I'm not even
quite sure
That is the situation you are describing.
I'm not sure what you mean by the situation you are describing, but
Ah, this is where we are probably at cross purposes. I am sorry for
that - its been a long thread. 80n's original query concerned
uploading work to OSMF by someone who has agreed to
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa,
especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the
user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes
would matter just as much.
For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing
data
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under
CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to
release the data *in the future* under
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:55 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa,
The definition of a derivative work is pretty clear. ... a work
based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works,
..., or any other
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a
deriviative work under the terms
I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM
servers is a form of publishing in terms of copyright.
If you create a work and never publish it (in other words, nobody else
will see it), then it is not yet copyrighted. Even works for hire are
not copyrighted until the hiring
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM
servers is a form of publishing in terms of copyright.
Indeed, it's the act of distribution. The question is, if the user
uploads a derivative work
On 17 April 2011 11:39, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor
terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach
of the CC-BY-SA license.
Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that
content
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked a similar question in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html
and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is
that most likely your contribution in this case
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked a similar question in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html
and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is
that most likely your contribution in this case
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not quite
sure I understand this one. What do you mean by upload .. .under a
On 17/04/11 14:17, Francis Davey wrote:
Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other
licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s).
Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says
You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which
On 17 April 2011 14:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Have you bought this up on cc-community?
If not please could you. :-)
That hadn't occurred to me. I'm afraid I tend to be reactive - time's
a bit limited for anything else. Also I assume they have expensive (or
at least skilled)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to
those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a
little clearer.
Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a
CC-BY-SA license.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to
those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a
little clearer.
Suppose there is
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 19:29, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please?
What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously?
And in what sense you mean can?
20 matches
Mail list logo
