On 16 June 2011 21:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future
relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the
terms seen to be required by the OS (currently
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst lt;rich...@systemed.netgt;
wrote:
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for
On 7 July 2011 04:03, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT
interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying
statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current
license and
2011/6/16 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net:
As a slightly supplementary question of what to do with data from those
users who have not agreed to the CT's can I make the following suggestion.
Given that we obviously want to move forward with a clean database untainted
by any data which
On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use
this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility
between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence)
and the way in which OSMF
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for further checks.
No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in
November 2010 and
(continuing from previous message, d'oh)
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community
would need to check existing data and delete it if so.
See also CT 1.2.x 1b which explicitly envisages this possibility:
if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense
Hi,
On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to
check existing data and delete it if so.
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the
burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean,
On 16/06/11 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would
need to
check existing data and delete it if so.
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the
burden of
On 16 June 2011 11:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden
of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even
*begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to
tell us
Hi,
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden
of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even
*begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to
tell us what license
On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for further checks.
No, that hasn't been the
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
(continuing from previous message, d'oh)
In the event of a future
As a slightly supplementary question of what to do with data from those
users who have not agreed to the CT's can I make the following suggestion.
Given that we obviously want to move forward with a clean database untainted
by any data which might be incompatible with future licences, AND
14 matches
Mail list logo
