On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that
the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the
database rights in some versions), I
Anthony o...@... writes:
So a license from, say, MapQuest,
granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
MapQuest's copyright,
...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data,
Well, depends on what you
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.
As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't
covered by BY-SA.
Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL?
___
legal-talk
On 11/19/2010 11:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
Anthonyo...@... writes:
On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.
Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
disagree with.)
At length. ;-)
-
Anthony,
On 11/19/10 14:38, Anthony wrote:
If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.
You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
that way and see if OSMF sue
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.
You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
that way and see if OSMF sue me.
Sure
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does not *say* you can do so.
It contains, in combination with the DbCL,
On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open in front of me, I
can't find any mention of the words map,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the
better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.
If, however, you intend to protect our data by putting it under a
share-alike
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
When I'm given a set of tiles under a
Oops.
Sorry about that. :-(
- rob
Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
rights that the CC
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases
(including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section
4.4)
I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible
licence
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some
new users will be shuned
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
should not be required
17 matches
Mail list logo
