At 08:36 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to
do with the end user license:
4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to
attribute You
At 08:28 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 05:14, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
I almost wish that Tobias Knerr's words earlier in this thread were my own:
The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building
a database together. It's not just
At 02:20 PM 7/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes
I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
published data under the same/similar license
At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
governmental organisations] and I have updated
IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote:
given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my
personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer ODbL-ready,
sickly sadly all too possible.
That's vandalism, of course. Could you share
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.
Mike
At 04:42 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
Which clause 3 contradicts
On 1/7/11, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like to run it
by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap and similar
situations.
Here is the CT version that we are looking at formally releasing:
://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbhttp://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb
and currently released 1.0 text
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
should be diff-marked with colour highlighting and strike-outs.
Mike
At 07:39 PM 5/12/2010, Mike
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
The License Working Group had a request from a contributor to make a statement
to the effect that users who sign up to v1.0 of the Contributor Terms will be
allowed to upgrade to future versions. I am now happy to provide such a
formal statement:
All the rights granted in the new proposed
At 08:42 PM 25/10/2010, Mâ¡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/10/25 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
I just answered a user's question on how to accept the new contributor
terms. I'll quote his statement here:
''How do we
Paris City Council will publish 20 data sets before the end of this year under
ODbL 1.0. Members of our own French community and chapitre Creative Commons
France [1] (!!) have had involvement in this process. Congratulations to Paris
and to them.
To come back on topic, I don't think this has made legal-talk yet. Thanks to
Jordan Hatcher, whose mail I am re-working:
The new UK Open Government Licence is now out:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm
At 09:03 AM 5/10/2010, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Ed Avis e...@... writes:
Perhaps there should be a meta-contributor-terms where you agree to
accept future
contributor terms proposed by the OSMF. Then there wouldn't be the need to
re-ask everybody each time the contributor terms change.
The License Working Group met Tuesday. Most, if not all, comment at the moment
is on the Contributor Terms. Therefore we will devote next week's meeting (Aug
31) entirely to going though each issue already raised. We will then pass these
on to legal counsel for review. When we get a response,
Liz,
You asked about the early intent of the Contributor Terms before they were
re-written by legal counsel. As promised:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
0.1
At 10:46 AM 14/08/2010, Rob Myers wrote:
On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote:
If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved,
then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary.
The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find
At 05:50 PM 22/08/2010, David Groom wrote:
Intent:
(1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental
organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms
without need for derogation.
(2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices. The license used in
At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom
mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.netrevi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or
CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general
permissions
At 12:02 PM 11/08/2010, David Groom wrote:
2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS imagery)
fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have **explicit**
permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the
licence below?'
The general
Interesting, the CC BY SA quote does rather suggest that such an application is
not CC BY SA compliant.
Two linked observations almost lead me to believe that the closed nature of a
platform is irrelevant, what is important is the effort made by the individual
developer to keep data/images
Jonas,
Getting in touch with the user courteously is certainly the best start.
Andrew Errington, CC'd, hosts talk-ko and may also be able to help.
If first steps do not resolve, the OSMF Foundation's Data Working Group [1] can
provide help. Most or all are members of this list anyway.
Mike
When the new Contributor Terms are really complete (not yet) we will need
Italian and French translations pretty fast in accordance with the laws of
those countries for the original version to be in native language.
We have a couple of avenues that may help us with that but nothing finalised
We are wanting to introduce dual-licensing for *new* registrants as soon as we
have the new Contributor Terms nailed down. That means a final review of the
current wording by legal counsel and then I'll ask for any last(?) comments
from this list.
We've made some changes in order to try and
At 03:57 PM 26/06/2009, Peter Miller wrote:
My concern here is to try to avoid creating an interesting target for
'carpet baggers' who may wish to 'privatise' OSM in the way that the
mutual building societies were privatised in the past ten years in the
UK.
At 06:00 PM 18/06/2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Russ Nelson wrote:
Yes, but your result has to be licensed under the CC-By-SA,
which means that in principle, somebody could republish your
composition. In practice, nobody has complained about
The Open Data Commons have announced their release schedule as follows.
Wed 29th Apr (next wed): public release of 1.0 RC (Release Candidate)
Wed 6th May (following wed): comments period on 1.0 RC close
Wed 13th May (following wed): 1.0 Released
Both releases should appear at:
I've tried to capture all the comments made with some strawman wording below.
Please feel free to cast arrows at it.
I've also copied it to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#What_constitutes_a_Substantial_extract
I am not happy that I have captured 2 properly. I
At 00:34 24/04/2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
SteveC wrote:
Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial'
means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged
around the wiki looking but might might have missed it.
It hasn't been discussed a lot. I guess you
The License Working Group met tonight (I'll publish minutes to
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org on Thursday) and Jordan Hatcher of Open
Data Commons participated.
We requested a firm and desirably soon date for ODbL 1.0 so that everyone can
get a chance to look at it. Jordan has kindly
Legal review of Use Case doco with original Use Case text is now available at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases or go straight
to
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2008-02-28_legalreviewofosmlicenseusecases2.pdf
David,
Unless I missed out, I don't think you got any replies to your message below?
Let me stick my neck out and give a few hints on how to proceed. I am sure it
could be improved and others might like to comment on suitability. A
boilerplate has been suggested before and it would be good
At 06:06 PM 6/10/2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote:
A good general method is to flip things around, explain what you are
going to do with the data and ask them to contact you by, say, the
end of the month if the use does NOT meet their terms of use.
I think that is both
33 matches
Mail list logo
