On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Grant Slater openstreetmap@... writes:
- block anyone who says no from contributing
and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors.
Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the
majority of the
as part of the voluntary relicensing phase of the move to ODbL,
existing contributors have had the ability to voluntarily accept the
contributor terms. to help the community assess the impact of the
relicensing it was planned to make the information about which
accounts have agreed available. this
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying.
Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an
unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of
the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer.
Cheers,
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
The upgrade clause in the ODbL should be sufficient
for any future licensing, and if the change is away from that, I expect
as a contributor to be consulted about it.
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:21:41AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is about.
i'm both a producer
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be acceptable?
The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone
under CC-BY-SA.
which ranges from being basically PD in some
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Lulu-Ann lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:
the end of voting comes closer and nobody has answered the questions on
the license use cases page yet.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases
i think i got them all. and the answers mainly came from
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's
going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said
yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be
presumed
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The example I described above
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D,
then
company D
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work
based on a derived database, you also have to publish either
(a) the derived database or
(b) a diff allowing someone to arrive at the derived
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their
intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an
intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company
A to warrant that
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data
isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut
instinct. what do you do
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the
ground rule? ;-)
The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for
having
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
So my question is:
1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text OSMF counsel
does not believe on something that seems to have fundamental
significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote:
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes:
From: paul everett tap...@...
What happens if the user imports an OSM file and I convert it to a
virtual city model ?
Then the city model has to be licensed the same
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:48 AM, David Vaarwerk da...@mineraldata.com.au wrote:
Thanks for your all the responses, they do help.
I think keeping the map and the business data separate with a double
license is the best solution as suggested.
So I will have a map with only OSM data, obviously
On 11/2/09, David Vaarwerk da...@mineraldata.com.au wrote:
I have made a map and business guide from scratch that you can
see here http://www.mineraldata.com.au/wp/index.html [1]. I would like to
share the map data with OSM and use OSM as a base map for this and other
maps/ business guides - I
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
you'd happily support distributing the data under a license which is
not likely to protect it?
I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available
under CC share-alike terms
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
Dr Evil doesn't need an unlimited legal budget - he just needs to live
in a country where non-creative data isn't copyrightable.
...and in a country where it is crystal clear that the OSM data
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Remember, though, that there are huge transaction costs associated with any
licence switch. Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal, it might
be better than deleting big chunks out of the database and alienating
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the
license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large
amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and
isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license,
which license?
I would prefer one which is CC-compatible
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
let's assume some data are taken and modified and used to generate
tiles. the ODbL would require that the modified data are made
available, regardless of the license of the tiles. if the data were
effectively-PD
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
these sites are in non-compliance with the license
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
Would switching to ODBL (or any licence) solve this particular problem?
quite possibly, since ODbL
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Sven Benhaupt
sven.benha...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/10/26 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Thanks a lot for your quick answer, this was very helpful for me.
If so - would it also be legally ok if I would create a print map
Yes, but the printed map is not
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
[CC-BY-SA unclear, or not permissive enough?]
We know for a fact that a number of people (especially people that have
asked their lawyers for an opinion) have indeed decided not to use our
data
On 10/24/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/21 rhn opstmaac@porcupinefactory.org:
I'm a mapper for more than a year, and I know a little bit about
intellectual property, but some questions have been puzzling me for quite
some time.
First of them - how much is
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Dan Karran d...@karran.net wrote:
What would happen if the beerintheOSM site encouraged their users to
add new pubs to their site, would that data - the equivalent of what
would have come from OSM, had they come from there - need to be
released as well, or
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Richard,
Richard Weait wrote:
Imagine a data provider using perhaps cc-by, or a BSD style permissive
license contributes their data to OSM.
Imagine then that they would like to monitor changes in OSM to data
that
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction
between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the
question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Turner
ajtur...@highearthorbit.com wrote:
On 2 Oct 2009, at 18:06, Matt Amos wrote:
hi legals,
i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the
ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the
ODbL to have
On 10/5/09, Laurence Penney l...@lorp.org wrote:
It seemed clear that such data extractions would not be considered
public domain, simply by virtue of having no grid reference or lat-
long. They were part of MasterMap, hence regarded as chargeable data.
that's the suck-'em-dry licensing model
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Greg Holloway
peanutzkingpeng...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:19:01 +
From: ava...@gmail.com
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] distribution
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Greg Holloway
hi legals,
i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the
ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the
ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less
viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the
general
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Matt Amos wrote:
And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui
generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is
hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui
generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is
hardly very
On 9/19/09, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
On 19 Sep 2009, at 04:38, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 23:19 -0500,
tele...@hushmail.com wrote:
My question is what type of attribution is appropriate? I have no
problem informing my end-users where I get the data. More
On 9/17/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
tele...@hushmail.com wrote:
My question is what type of attribution is appropriate?
I think I'm speaking for the majority of contributors when I say that
having the credits in the credits roll at the end of a TV production is
On 9/9/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes:
By the sound of that, it seems that they're joining up the GMaps data and
the OSM data, and filtering out the street names in common.
I think that their DB is a derivative work of the OSM data and that
share-alike
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Dave Stubbsosm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
LWG cannot entirely resolve these questions, as they need open
discussion and community consensus (which we obviously
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Ulf Möller wrote:
No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The
idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the
extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means
that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot
upload it to OSM without express permission of the license
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote:
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration
when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such
permission. That can be copyright law, database
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote:
As far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't have 'terms and conditions' on
the website, despite being equally dependent on user contributions and
with more scope for legal risk from libel, offensive content and so
on.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
see also the terms at the bottom of every edit box.
These terms and conditions don't try
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Matt Amoszerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
see also the terms
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Jonas Krückel wrote:
And the second question is, if it is allowed to translate the agreement
for the user at the sign up process (a word was ported about the
license, I don't really now what this means here)?
If we
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Matt Amos wrote:
my understanding is that, because we have database rights (and
possibly other IP rights) in the original database, the re-created
database is still (a substantial extract of) an ODbL licensed
database
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Before, the reverse engineering clause would have kicked in and forced
FSM to be under ODBL. In the future, the above will be fully legal, and
the resulting FSM database, which contains facts derived from OSM data
but
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote:
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it
is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced
Work.
We can clearly define things that are USUALLY Produced
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
There is both the situation were OSM bulk-imports some data
from another source into OSM that is published as ODbL where the
original data owner can not be contacted which I would hope would be
possible,
under the
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
the OSMF LWG recently had a couple of calls with Clark Asay, who has
generously agreed to give OSMF legal advice concerning the new
license. i've attached the write up of the first of the calls
Was that based on the
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
...and
Peter Miller's concerns are legit: If you are the licensor, then, under
4.4.d...
Licensors may authorise a proxy to determine compatible licences under
Section 4.4 a iii. If they do so, the authorised proxy's
the OSMF LWG recently had a couple of calls with Clark Asay, who has
generously agreed to give OSMF legal advice concerning the new
license. i've attached the write up of the first of the calls, in
which we went over a series of short questions that grant and i had
previously extracted from ulf's
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
I have just concluded an email discussion with Jordan following our
lawyers review of 1.0 who has answered some points but is now saying
that he would need someone to pay him to answer more of them which
leaves
61 matches
Mail list logo
