John Smith wrote:
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government
Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
(ODC-By and ODbL).
Nice bait and switch...
Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?!
In your first
of licenses,
particulary if you are looking a local and regional data sources.
Simon
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 07/12/10 23:49, Simon Poole wrote:
I'm not assuming anything.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM community)
don't have an handle on imports in any respect.
Yes I'd agree with that.
-
] New phrase in section 2
Simon Poole wrote:
That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the
issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has
pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO
no reason to believe that it will magically start working
On 8 December 2010 18:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government
Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
(ODC-By and ODbL).
Nice bait and switch...
Goodness me, John, do you
And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially
setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it
and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another
check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text:
On 7 December 2010 20:44, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially
setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed
Cool. Thanks for the info.
it and checked all the other wording, though I'd
On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed
data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound
to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can
submit such data
On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed
data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound
to remove such
On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the explanation.
Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that
is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an
No. Its purpose is to expressly state that the contributor
Franics writes:
What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
those.
This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested.
The
On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote:
The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't
want to actually do anything about it.
Please Assume Good Faith.
Also remember that the LWG meets once a week.
And that they do read this list.
- Rob.
On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Franics writes:
What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
those.
This or a
On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that
is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an
No. Its purpose is to
say that that is a bad
thing.
Simon
- Original Message -
From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote:
The LWG actually knows
AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Franics writes:
What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
compatible with OSMF and refuse
Mike
insection 4
4. At Your or the copyright holder's option, probably should be You not
Your
David
- Original Message -
From: Mike Collinson
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase
Simon Poole wrote:
Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer,
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with
some degree of certainty is just a joke.
Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a
On 8 December 2010 11:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of
future mappers.
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence)
openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine.
The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for
pointing it out. Will investigate.
Mike
At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move
Original Message -
From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
equal footing with OSMF.
On 3 December 2010 14:14, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Okay, true. I still think it accomplishes something very important
which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA. OSMF doesn't get any special
rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have.
Ah, I see, and I'm fairly sure that wasn't what
- Original Message -
From: Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
[snipped for brevity]
Yes. I am fairly clear that some
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by
the chairman
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
the licence? It does happen you know :-).
Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be
adequately explained by
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language,
unintended consequences are unenforcible.
And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see
the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say
On 2 December 2010 01:36, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Damn. I was hoping no one was going to notice that before the terms
went into effect :).
I'm pretty sure I pointed out difficulties with the wording a
reasonably long time ago.
Two remarks:
- A court might interpret it in context to
- Original Message -
From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
equal footing with OSMF.
On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
equal footing with OSMF.
Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no
From CT 1.2:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain to me, who is meant by any party that receives Your
Contents ?
--
View this message in context:
On 2 December 2010 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
fx99 wrote:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to
OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain to me, who is meant by any party that receives
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
fx99 wrote:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant
to OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain
36 matches
Mail list logo
