Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can actually make a
reliable statement expressing the community interpretation of certain
points of the license,
Thinking about it, I am not sure this is the case. If the OSMF has an agreement
with mappers
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2011 20:38, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could
just keep on mapping.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
On 8 April 2011 16:55, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone
could
On 08/04/11 07:55, Ed Avis wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone
could
just keep on mapping.
On 8 April 2011 11:38, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ed,
transfer rights to the OSMF
I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
situation where some contributors
Kevin Peat kevin@... writes:
I read recently (not sure if true) that Libreoffice in their fork from
Openoffice had abandoned CT's and seen a big increase in contributors. I wonder
if introducing CT's will have the opposite impact on OSM.
I've seen this sentiment expressed:
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could
just keep on
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
to transfer rights to the OSMF.
But, you still own rights to the data you contributed (you can give it
however you want to anybody else). You're just giving OSMF the
permission to release your data as part of a database.
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
Also, Ed, I think that your wording transfer rights to the OSMF wrong
because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted.
Eugene Alvin Villar also pointed this out; I should have written
'grant rights to the OSMF'.
One of the major
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people
on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data
or
requiring every
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 05:05 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.
Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.
I was trying to say that even if we
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
For example, we have this situation now where we say if you make a web
application and display your layer in a separatable fashion over an OSM
layer, this is not a derived work, but a collective work.
The contributor terms create a situation where OSMF can
Am 08.04.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Avis:
Frederik Rammfrederik@... writes:
I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.
Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
As I understand it, the automatic upgrade clause in
On 8 April 2011 18:10, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Interesting. So in your view the newer CTs restrict the OSMF in certain ways
that wouldn't be the case if mappers simply licensed their data to the OSMF
under
CC-BY-SA 2.0. I suppose that by the same logic the automatic upgrade
Am 08.04.2011 19:10, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
As I
I read on one of these lists that it may take up to a year for compliance to
the licence/ct to be effected.
Is there a way to shorten this process for Australia, since until all the
Australian OSM data is compliant, there is little point in anyone doing any
real mapping here.
Nick
18 matches
Mail list logo
