On 12 May 2009, at 03:17, Peter Miller 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 things in a rather unsatisfactory
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then
introducing it to a large jurisdiction without something like a database
directive (the US?), and thereby leaving us with only plain
On 13 May 2009, at 01:36, Matt Amos wrote:
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
On 12/05/09 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Claiming copyright on something where you are not reasonably sure of
actually having it is, in my eyes, a FUD maneouvre worthy of players
like the OS, but something that we should make an attempt to steer clear of.
The way of avoiding it seeming to be
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
Ulf Möller use...@... writes:
Jukka Rahkonen schrieb:
But what if OSMF is changing the license and somebody has
managed to base some business on top of derived database
licensed under the old
ODbL license? Dou you lawyers say that it is a sound basis
for building a
business? For
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
The way of avoiding it seeming to be FUD is to have a clause like:
Nothing in this licence attempts to restrict your rights under fair use
or a similar doctrine.
Sounds like: We have a honest desire to sue the shit out of you if you
violate any of our 52
Jukka Rahkonen schrieb:
And if the maintainer of the derived database has a
community that continues to collect new data under ODbL 1.0 terms, and the
main
OSM has advanced to ODbL 1.1 or something, is it possible to exchange data
between these two systems?
According to RC1, you could use
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
one of the things i'm gaining a better understanding of, having spoken
with Clark, is that no license is ever fully watertight and we are
highly unlikely to be able to defend all of our rights in all possible
jurisdictions.
I think we can all live with not being able to
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL,
I should have explained: Such whitewashing would require someone to
breach the contract by removing all licensing information and then
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:14:49AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then
introducing it to a large jurisdiction without something like a database
directive (the US?),
On 12 May 2009, at 04:13, Matt Amos wrote:
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
On 12 May 2009, at 08:00, Simon Ward wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:14:49AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then
introducing it to a large jurisdiction without
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
However if the OSMF can change the license and given that it is a
viral license then surely anyone else can also change the licensing of
any derived database? Our lawyer mentions that the OSMF could 'sell it
of commercial terms' or make it available to a
Hi,
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 0.9 or 1.0 license?
I am concerned because of
Q: Is the process of
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
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
The answer lies in 4.9 (you may not sublicense the database). We often
sloppily say that if you make a derived work you must license it under
ODbL, but this is not the way ODbL is intended to work. The idea is
that the original licensor (OSMF) is
Hi,
Mikel Maron wrote:
This *seems* like a big problem in the ODbL, but maybe I
misundertand. Is the ODbL non-transitive??
It certainly is planned to be non-transitive.
It feels a bit non-free at first because you will never ever get rid of
the original licensor; but thinking about it, it's
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Now Peter's interpretation is: Since the licensor has these powers, why
does not Fred simply take the database, publish a derived version of it
under ODbL and say I as the licensor hereby exercise my powers under
section 4.4.d and decree that PD is a
Hi,
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
But what if OSMF is changing the license and somebody has
managed to base some business on top of derived database licensed under the
old
ODbL license?
Well he can always continue the data he already has and which he was
given under the old license. The license
Jukka Rahkonen schrieb:
But what if OSMF is changing the license and somebody has
managed to base some business on top of derived database licensed under the
old
ODbL license? Dou you lawyers say that it is a sound basis for building a
business? For me it would feel more fair if the
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
I have no idea if this concept of fixing the licensor to always be OSMF
is workable at all. Is it used elsewhere, or is it an entirely new idea?
A number of high-profile open source projects including GNU and Apache
operate that way.
The FSF will accept non-trivial
Hi,
Ulf Möller wrote:
I think the provisions of the GPL and ODbL are quite similar:
Oops. If ODbL and GPL are as parallel to the GPL as you suggest, then:
GPL v3:
Sublicensing is not allowed - Each time you convey a covered work,
the recipient automatically receives a license from 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 11 May 2009, at 23:43, Matt Amos 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, in
which we went over a series of short questions that
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
