Nick Black wrote:
... Right now we're looking into a ticketing system that we can use
to track emails to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again.
So if anyone knows a good free as in speech (we're happy to pay, but
we'd rather be able to hack at the source code if needed) ticketing
Nic Roets wrote:
I don't know about coca-cola-sucks.org http://coca-cola-sucks.org
but coca-cola-sucks.co.za http://coca-cola-sucks.co.za should not be
too difficult. See http://hellcom.co.za/
Not quite...
Hellcom/Hellkom is a play on the name of South Africa's telecom operator
Telkom
Liz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me) who's
listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
interest.
That's the way Australian law works.
If I am on a Board (which I am) and some
Legal-Talk,
Apologies but do due to a scheduling conflict, today's meeting is being
rescheduled for early next week.
We'll report back then.
Regards
Grant / Licensing Work Group.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and
supporting the
://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/working-group-minutes/licensing-working-group-minutes-2009-02-02/
Agenda going forward... Yes I agree.
Regards
Grant
On 4 Mar 2009, at 15:09, Grant Slater wrote:
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/working-group-minutes/
I believe the first agenda
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
In the past couple of license working group meetings we've been trying
to figure out how to get more input from the community on everything
without descending in to a free-for-all.
Does that mean that what we've so far collected on the
SteveC has posted 2 import updates rolled into 1.
http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=459
Shaun McDonald has also just announced the launch of Crap-O-Surface
Detector with OSM smoothness tag support.
http://blog.shaunmcdonald.me.uk/2009/04/the-crap-o-surface-detector/
Any other important April 1st
Legal,
The ODbL (potential future OpenStreetMap license) relies on the meaning
of Substantial.
The ODbL 1.0rc defines it as:
Substantial - Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a
combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or
Re-utilisation of insubstantial
Lauri Hahne wrote:
I think the problem here is that our own definition of substantial is
by no means binding. The definition of substantial in ODbL comes
pretty straight from EU's database directive and the definition is
ultimately up to courts to decide.
I should have been clearer.
This
Peter Miller wrote:
Possibly we should change its name to 'Substantial - Community Norm'
or 'Substantial - Guidance'?
+1: Substantial - Community Norm
/ Grant
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Lauri Hahne wrote:
-1 Substantial - Community norm
+1 Substantial - Guidance
+1 Substantial - Guideline
Page renamed:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline
Old page has redirect to new page.
/ Grant
Legal-talk,
Not yet announced here...
ODbL 1.0 was officially released on Monday by Open Data Commons...
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
Our potential implementation plan:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan#Current
Regards
Grant
2009/7/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
I just checked out the BBC web site and while they say please get a
parent's permission before taking part in any bbc.co.uk community if
you're under 16, there is nothing remotely referencing COPPA there. Nor
does it say if you're under 13 you may
2009/7/30 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Pavel Zubkou wrote:
Can I look at
*copyrighted* map for a name of lake that is placed at about 10km
northen from city X?
It is best to be paranoid.
Live in the belief that all in copyright maps are covered in Trap
Streets [1] (or names) waiting
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Yes it does. The LWG sought specific legal advise on this. We wouldn't
be an open project if this was not allowed.
/ Grant
___
Matt Amos [1] and Mike Collinson [2], members of the LWG [3] together
with Peter Batty [4], Richard Fairhurst [5] and Steve Coast [6] got
together earlier today to discuss OpenStreetMap Licensing, ODbL and
some of the licensing debate.
On 2 June 2010 21:03, Phil Monger phil...@gmail.com wrote:
So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across
this one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if
they don't work let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for
the lack of a close
On 25 July 2010 18:49, Todd Huffman huffma...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you point me to a reference on this? Ideally there would be a
resource which laid out which jurisdictions one can put something into
public domain.
LMGTFY;
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225
/ Grant
On 4 August 2010 14:00, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole relicensing effort would be a bit of a non-starter if this
deletion process cannot be done.
During late 2008 and early 2009 a user inappropriately imported (and
amend existing OSM data) into OSM for Lithuania from what was strongly
On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
please see this as well,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons
What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a
CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a
On 29 August 2010 00:48, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
license changes
On 29 August 2010 01:33, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap.
Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years?
Hell no. I see it being sorted out fairly quickly. As per update email
to talk-au list the LWG has
On 29 August 2010 07:23, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Duane,
Not at all, I never consider that OSm would move to an incompatible
contract system and away from copyright/copyleft.
On 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
- with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork
their data (or is only
On 7 September 2010 13:12, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
Is Google Maps(MapMaker) now starting to use OSM data? I've been adding a
lot of data to OSM this past month, and have seen that data also appearing on
Google Maps. Most blatant is a screw-up I made to the coastline in my
On 16 September 2010 19:29, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 16/09/2010 16:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
If it isn't will this mean previous traced/imported Opendata will have to
be removed?
If the incompatibilities in the licenses / CTs are not resolved before
the OSM license
On 16 September 2010 21:26, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com
wrote:
This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working
Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_ compatible with ODbL and the
Contributor Terms
On 17 September 2010 11:26, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
With this response b) was seen as compatible. Under a) it was advised
there is an issue of sub-licensing. Asking source author for
permission to contribute under CT was an option; as was to keep
distributing said specific data
On 24 September 2010 10:36, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Dave F. dave...@... writes:
OS Opendata compatibility with the new proposed license Contribution
Terms as they're worded *at this moment*.
The current contributor terms for new accounts require you grant a licence to
the OSMF to
On 24 September 2010 12:10, David Dean dd...@ieee.org wrote:
Grant,
On 24 September 2010 20:21, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Ordnance Survey's OpenData license specifically allows sub-licensing,
restricted by the need for attribution. There isn't a conflict with
the 'free
On 24 September 2010 14:06, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The CTs state:
You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder
Which seems fairly clear to me.
It then goes on to say If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents,
You represent and warrant that You have
On 29 September 2010 13:15, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final decision
on choice needs to be made now. Practice has clearly changed since 2008.
If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning when
the OS
On 29 September 2010 18:34, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote:
The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible.
Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes?
The message was via email outside the weekly minutes. But it was badly
On 1 October 2010 21:55, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Would you kindly indicate how you are going to remove it?
Discussion on handling how to measure 'clean feed' data was started
here: (same problem)
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html
There is also
On 5 October 2010 08:28, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@... writes:
To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
current contributor terms.
Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible
On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the
data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale
photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them
On 23 November 2010 13:23, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or
the
data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale
On 23 November 2010 14:14, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is some data:
node id=915100779 lat=51.5798222 lon=-0.3341762 version=2
changeset=6058195 user=Walter Schlögl uid=78656 visible=true
timestamp=2010-10-16T14:40:13Z
tag k=name v=McDonald's/
tag k=amenity v=fast_food/
tag
On 23 November 2010 14:57, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over,
Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in
Europe - is that so?
What difference does it make? It does not effect ODbL and that is
On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap
community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or
anybody else to stand
On 25 November 2010 02:22, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Frederik
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 8 December 2010 00:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively
such a shame he, and
others keep doing this.
On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Disappointing as ever... [citation needed]
What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up
on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote:
About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike
and attribution clauses.
I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority
On 19 December 2010 16:53, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
Try the google cache version:
On 19 December 2010 20:16, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com
wrote:
Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing
Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf
That's quite curious. Several non-Microsoft
On 5 January 2011 12:09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will
not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to
the CT.
Can you clarify this? I understood that the
On 5 January 2011 04:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 04:37, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to
delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.
I still don't understand how data
On 30 March 2011 13:56, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
I was checking some papers at work today and accidentally found this license
violation (both Attribution and Share-Alike) by the RAND Corporation:
On 11 April 2011 08:04, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/11 Krysha Krysha kry...@rambler.ru:
Hello!
Why in the Contributor Terms does not contain definitions of free and
open. Different organizations may have different understanding of these
terms. For example, there is a
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 18:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
2. Has the OSMF any commercial intentions ? I cannot imagine that OSMF
want to sell the OSM-database to anyone (??!); or is the following
phrase meant to transfer (sub-license) the right for
On 31 May 2011 00:44, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be a huge jump in the rate of CT acceptances (and
declines, if you look close enough). About 3000 acceptances in a span
of 36 hours:
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html
Did somebody do a mass email
On 7 June 2011 09:35, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
3. OSMF to choose a new license that is free and open, present it to
OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the
new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the 2/3 of
://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios
- Grant Slater (me) - Non GIS field
- Michael Collinson - Non GIS field. Former board member.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=Board_Member_Biosoldid=392
- Steve Coast - Resigned Cloudmade 2010. Employee @ Bing.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki
On 21 June 2011 05:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits
submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be
used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual
which submitted the
On 26 June 2011 17:22, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:
Hi Grant,
can I still expect a contructive reply to my email answering your question
about my concerns, or should I simply hit the „decline“ button?
Hi Olaf,
Sorry I have not had time to think through your suggestions
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license
On 16 November 2011 08:07, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:16:47 +0100, Michael Collinson wrote:
The numbers:
http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png - each square
represents one user, weighted by size of contribution. Green=accepted,
Red=Declined or has not
62 matches
Mail list logo
