Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think the biggest problem for commercial users is probably the fact
that they can't get legal info from us - if they ask can we do X
then our response will always be read the license and ask a lawyer.
I agree, that is very unsatifactory. It is even inconvenient to me as
Nick Black wrote:
Seriously, you can't actually expect OSM to change its license because
of what a well-intentioned small company might do.
No, but as long as we can't even tell a company that might use maps in
their books on whether those books will be under the CC_BY_SA or just
the images
Gervase Markham wrote:
The notion of derivative works is a fairly well defined one under
copyright law. Many, many companies deal with this concept every day.
-Right, so having an overlay with proprietary data on an OSM map is
derived? As a separate layer? If it's merged in one image instead,
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
In Linux that problem is solved by companies bying their product from
Redhat, including some kind of insurance that RedHat provides. If there
are legal hassles, then Redhat would be sued and RedHat would have to
deal with the 2 copyright holders and not the
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
If they say but I would really like to do X, if you give me in
writing that I can do X I'll give you $10.000 and print OSM adverts on
every GPS I sell, then we still cannot say it because we're not the
owners of the data.
In Linux that problem is solved by companies
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think the biggest problem for commercial users is probably the fact
that they can't get legal info from us - if they ask can we do X
then our response will always be read the license and ask a lawyer.
I agree, that is very unsatifactory. It is
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; charset=ISO-8859-1
Peter Miller wrote:
I realise that the OSMF is taking external legal advice at the moment, but
progress seems very slow
Progress is not slow, it's just that it's not always possible to
publicly communicate it at every turn. If you find that not knowing
frustrates you, you could maybe
I've already said quite alot over on talk@, so I'll try to keep this
to the point.
I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I
first found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but as
I've followed the discussions I've become a lot more concerned. While
I cannot open my tiny company and our potential
customers to the viral effects of a broad application of the Share Alike
intentions under a broad notion of derivative works
Perhaps you could give a concrete example of what you plan to do, and
explain why the share-alike principle is not
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Nathan Vander Wilt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already said quite alot over on talk@, so I'll try to keep this to the
point.
I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I first
found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but
Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I first
found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but as I've
followed the discussions I've become a lot more concerned. While there
are many users who want their work to be fully in
Which particular FUD do you have in mind? ;-)
*Any* licence will carry legal risks. Paying for a proprietary dataset
without talking the licence through with a lawyer would be silly. There
is no reason why a free licence should be any different. Simple
licences are not necessarily easier to
I really would like to see a license as simple as the following:
For data users -
0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data.
1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy.
2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is very strongly
encouraged.
On May 6, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Which particular FUD do you have in mind? ;-)
Over on the talk list, the notion was spread that even when a user
notes that they dedicate their data to the Public domain, all it
might take to undo the Public Domain-ness of those contributions
15 matches
Mail list logo
