Simple solution: ask the city council.
Simon
- Original Message -
From: Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:20 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] use of auckland city council aerial
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 list of approved sources as I have already suggested.
The
say that that is a bad
thing.
Simon
- Original Message -
From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote:
The LWG actually knows
AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
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
Simon Poole wrote:
Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer,
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with
some degree of certainty is just a joke.
Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a small
] New phrase in section 2
Simon Poole wrote:
That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the
issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has
pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO
no reason to believe that it will magically start working
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing
TermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
It may be true that tracing aerial images
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote
None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative
work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the
definition of that term.
It's extremly unlikely that a German court would use English :-).
But in the specific case they did
Francis, have a nice holiday.
Simon
PS: I'm actually completly with you on the interpretation, the issue is
that we have a large body of mappers that are German CS students, that
just love arguing subtle points, and in formal specifications must,
shall, should, etc. have very different
Am 08.04.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Avis:
Frederik Rammfrederik@... writes:
I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.
Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.
Am 08.04.2011 19:10, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers,
representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that
specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license.
As I
Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs
stipulate the opposite.
Simon
Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor
Am 17.04.2011 11:59, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
Granting rights to a central body (but not
your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
communities.
Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related
to the legal system in this world.
Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the
countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the
derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the
EU you are not in trouble, just if.
Simon
Am 17.06.2011 16:54, schrieb John
Am 06.07.2011 20:31, schrieb John Smith:
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
[GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use
in the digital era,
You were talking about databases, however databases can still store
Am 06.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Andreas Perstinger:
BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that
a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically
here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just
reproducing geographical facts like
Am 07.07.2011 01:40, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote:
That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
the data they
contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
Simon
Am 07.07.2011 01:54, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote:
Normally none of them lead to a protected work and
Am 07.07.2011 01:56, schrieb Anthony:
...
There certainly is creativity involved in making a brick wall.
Choosing a herringbone bond vs. a stretcher bond, for instance. And in
some cases it can be copyrightable - not if it's just a herringbone or
a stretcher bond, but if the pattern is
In terms of laws, sure.
Am 07.07.2011 02:08, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote:
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
I didn't know the late 1800s was
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable
letters) which doesn't make it recent,
but still twice as old as copyright law.
The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation,
not moral as you imply.
Simon
Am 07.07.2011 02:12, schrieb John Smith:
Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid
getting sucked in to his endless threads.
But it was 2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated
book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I
needed a short break :-)
Simon
Am
Geo-referenced facts?
And, all of your examples other even less potential to be a protected
work than your typical way.
Simon
Am 08.07.2011 09:10, schrieb Maarten Deen:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM
Am 11.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Grant Slater:
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 is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.
.
It's not just remapping that effects this, we are still seeing between
60-100 pre-CTs signups
accepting the CTs per day without any indication of this slowing down.
I expect a couple of 10'000 more before we actually relicense.
Simon
Am 10.08.2011 09:16, schrieb 80n:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at
Am 10.08.2011 11:29, schrieb Nic Roets:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmeng.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
PD data does not need a
complicated and binding CT as the current one.
True. But PD is forward compatible with the CTs. For example, we did
not need
Am 11.08.2011 01:50, schrieb Henk Hoff:
...
Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you
agree every time you use one of its services.
I normally refer to
http://wikimapia.org/terms_reference.html
for ToS for something similar to OSM.
Simon
Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
...
It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about.
The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion
only is about what license.
A license is necessary because we legally need to
Nobody has claimed that everything leading up to the license changed was
handled perfectly, with hindsight I would suspect that a couple of
things would
have been handled differently by everybody involved.
But I have not seen anything that would indicate that the outcome of
any such better
As was to be expected, there was at least one bug in the script :-/
I've regenerated the tables with the correction and some additional
features. Further the worldwide stats are now based on the most
recent full history dump.
Simon
Am 18.08.2011 00:30, schrieb Simon Poole:
I've produced
are very similar, and there are
no larger imports in both countries, contrary for example to the
Netherlands).
Simon
Am 19.08.2011 23:34, schrieb Simon Poole:
As was to be expected, there was at least one bug in the script :-/
I've regenerated the tables with the correction and some additional
Am 24.08.2011 16:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
...
One of the PD-but-not-CT-people said something like I don't want to
give any kind of explicit assurance/permission to OSMF. I.e. they
don't want a contract with OSMF. But I think that could be remedied by
offering them a differently worded
.
And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination
with a username and email as an ID does not invariably
lead to one person to be kept responsible.
Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain.
Gert
*Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
*Verzonden:* woensdag 24 augustus
/User:TimSC) that
realized that and tries to fix it.
And now the OSMF is supposed to second guess what all the mappers with
similar statements really intended to say?
Simon
Am 26.08.2011 01:23, schrieb Ian Sergeant:
Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote on 25/08/2011 05:53:04 PM:
Having
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have
made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to
vouch for the data and accept the CTs?
At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this
would seem to be doable without creating a
the point.
Outside the right now, the new terms do not logically conflict and
provide a rational mechanism for further engagement with the OSM
community on what our license should be.
Mike
On 31/08/2011 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have
.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Verzonden: zondag 4 september 2011 13:54
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tweeting mappers who have not responded
IMHO at this stage anything goes, so twitter, facebook etc.
I do have to say
I've produced some numbers to getter a better grip on and if the PD
"issue" has any real significance.
I found 476 mappers in the PD or CC0 categories, of these (using a
simple lower case name comparison), I was able to determine the UID
of 375. Obviously there
Am 10.09.2011 10:01, schrieb Simon Poole:
And a total of 42 PD mappers that actually still have V1 objects in
the database.
Just a small clarification: the 42 (naturally) does not include PD
mappers that have accepted the CTs.
Simon
___
legal
[Apologies in advance for the HTML formatting]
As you may have noticed, the sysadmins were kind enough to generate a
new full history dump over the last couple of days. Besides generating
new numbers for odbl.poole.ch (which will take some time for the full
set), I was mainly interested in
happens then.
irony OFF
Gert
*Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
*Verzonden:* Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:56 AM
*Aan:* Licensing and other legal discussions.
*Onderwerp:* [OSM-legal-talk] Affect of Remapping on Contributor
TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)
[Apologies in advance for the HTML
the community 2 ½ year then.
And for contacting 60K mappers, will the community
just ignore their opinion and declare them CT-compliant
by default ? Or will their data be deleted after 2 ½ years ?
Hey OSMF, we need steering here !
Gert
*Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
*Verzonden
We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started more
or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is no
real hope that a significant amount of this data will be re-licensed by
the original mappers, and since these objects pre-date the introduction
of
Am 17.11.2011 08:37, schrieb Simon Poole:
We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started
more or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is
no real hope that a significant amount of this data will be
re-licensed by the original mappers, and since
Am 08.12.2011 15:46, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
Hi,
On 12/08/2011 02:20 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
They produced a written report
I am intrigued by the joint authorship concept. If that was true
(relatively) universally, then we could perhaps use that to force even
those who haven't agreed to the
I think you may have misunderstood the whole point of the exercise.
While there may be protectable IP in individual contributions depending
on jurisdiction, maybe even joint rights in the whole database and we
can be fairly sure that the OSM DB would lead to rights wrt EU DB
protection
Please don't confuse the matter by treating tagged and untagged notes
the same.
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that, just because he is reusing an
Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a
Am 21.12.2011 14:15, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?
Are we not talking about the following situation:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
-
Am 21.12.2011 14:50, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
A number of you have probably already seen CLEANMAP in its original
incarnation as announced on Christmas. I've now expanded it to cover the
whole planet and have made some further changes (odbl=clean support for
example).
Please read the wiki page
Am 13.01.2012 23:42, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
Hi,
here's an interesting example from the German forum. A way that was
created by a decliner but later edited by 10 others; of everything the
decliner originally created, only the very first node remains,
everything else has been lost in the
Am 19.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Andrew Harvey:
.
There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get
mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content
CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to
the CTs anyway with the logic
Am 13.02.2012 14:32, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
.
- mapper contacts government asking for data
- government says here, you can have that, but it may only be
distributed under ODbL or CC-BY-SA, nothing else
- mapper contributes data to OSM without even *telling* us that there
is this additional
Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable.
But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue?
If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data
(the enforce bit of my previous posting).
Simon
Am 13.02.2012 15:22, schrieb Martin
On the same topic:
I've started work on going over the import catalogue (giving a lot of
room for stuff that is under discussion or clearly ok (Corine)) and
moving entries that either will or should go away with the licence
transition (note green is -good- aka will be automatically deleted),
Am 13.02.2012 17:44, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
(I assume you mean CC-By-SA)
Simon, I would like to know what your interpretation of the current
Contributor Terms version is, I know what LWG's interpretation is from
their meeting minutes and it must be different from your
interpretation.
Am 13.02.2012 18:55, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
Take the example of NearMap TOS, tracing NearMap (specially aided by
local knowledge) is not something we tend to call an import.
It is not an import, but it is an incredible special, special case (and
one that is no longer an
If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of
your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other
developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely
we would need to see some examples.
Simon
Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn:
The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB
doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the
attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object.
However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've
seen from your
Am 29.03.2012 19:16, schrieb rhn:
On a side note, relying on such a decision would be ironic - a lot of
data I imported were only a copy of a PD map :) Cheers, rhn
Unluckily that the original source was PD doesn't make a difference
(legally), what counts is the licence you received the data
There is a list of incompatbile changesets here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service/Changeset_Lists#Tainted_Changesets
IMHO the best would be for Pavel to accept, but that naturally depends
on him.
Simon
Am 04.04.2012 11:53, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
Petr Morávek
In the case of the ODbL this would depend on the ownership and legal
status of the mapping agency (actually it seems as if the ODbL has a
tiny issue in that while parent-owned entity is considered non-public
and ok, the other way around not, something for 1.1). I don't believe
CC by-SA 2.0 has
Am 21.06.2012 19:35, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
The huge amount of data is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of
nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me,
Actually in real life the damage to nodes is substantially less. On the
one hand I don't respect the V0 rule, on the other hand and more
Am 17.07.2012 13:01, schrieb fk270...@fantasymail.de:
The detrimental license bot now has reached Germany and promptly left a lot
of errors here.
Let's just look at one city, Göttingen in Northern Germany, where I have
contacted some undecided users, so I have some knowledge about pre-bot
I personally can't see enough wiggle room both in the ODbL and the CTs
to make any dataset generated by geocoding and/or reverse geocoding
anything else than a derivative database. It is just the ODbL working as
intended. We went through a lot of effort to get from a broken to a
functional
Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
1. I used OSM as the basemap for my map of refugee camps, the camp
data is my organizations and licensed CC BY-NC. The data for OSM and
the camp data is never combined. I release my map under CC-BY-NC. I
believe this is okay.
All IMHO naturally.
Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use
OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because
Phone currently.
Am 18.01.2013 20:04, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/1/18 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz:
The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.
are you meeting on IRC or is this a telephone conference?
cheers,
The use of the term Database in an intellectual property context has
essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The
statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading.
I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time
it came up.
Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik:
How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is
licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD
Produced Work to credit OSM?
Sincerely,
This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3
Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm
Bekim
The basic issue is likely to be that we never received permission to
distribute the original imported data with the ODbL implying that the
date had to be removed prior to the licence change. The redaction
process was designed to preserve as much work as possible is such
situations, but for
Am 07.03.2013 17:20, schrieb Bekim Kajtazi:
To help understand better, this is how data got into OSM:
I digitized the data from topo maps
Shared the SHP File with FLOSSK in Prishtina
FLOSSK recruited many volunteers to get the data in OSM
Few months later data was removed from OSM
Hi Paul
Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission from HGK (with
a pointer that the data is freely available elsewhere and that removing
it would add up to deleting and re-adding exactly the same data)? Having
such permission would seem to be the best solution right now.
2nd
Am 29.04.2013 10:18, schrieb Paul Norman:
From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:58 PM
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey
Hi Paul
Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission
Am 29.04.2013 11:14, schrieb Henning Scholland:
Am 29.04.2013 10:42, schrieb Simon Poole:
However in the current
case I doubt that there is actually something useful for OSM left once
the names are gone.
If the information There is a village stays in OSM, it would be
useful at all. If you
Am 29.04.2013 11:27, schrieb Simon Poole:
I would agree that there is some value in having naked place
nodes. However considering that at best we are talking about 2-3k
such nodes surviving it is a question if doing an imagery based
add a place drive or similar
Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite
yes from me. There is a term in singular that should be plural I
believe. But otherwise completely ok with me.
Simon
Am 09.07.2013 20:38, schrieb Michael Collinson:
Simon,
Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over
It seems as if we inadvertently CC's this to the public legal-talk list
and not to the LWG one.
Apologies to all.
Simon
Am 09.07.2013 21:56, schrieb Simon Poole:
Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite
yes from me. There is a term in singular that should
I'm trying to
prevent the TrackSource folks from losing interest in OSM.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server
Mikel
I believe there is a simple solution, please document the source with
the full text of the licence or with a statement by the lawyer in
question, since the later is unlikely to forthcoming (we probably
wouldn't do that either), its going to be the former. I find it quite
understandable
Hi Fernando
I gather from your questions that they are currently not distributing
the data under a (well-)known licence or on any other documented terms?
In any case before spending to much effort on trying to nail down the
legal side, you really need to clarify if this is suitable data for OSM
of visibility.
Regards,
Fernando
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote:
Hi Fernando
I gather from your questions that they are currently not
distributing the data under
Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow:
I like the Mapbox solution the author mentions of putting a box on the
map to take you to another page. I realize that unless the user clicks
on the link, they will never discover that OSM contributed to this
product. Since OSM may be only one of
That are not the last board minutes as you know, there are:
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10
Am 11.01.2014 10:07, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen:
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow:
I
like the Mapbox
Apple does not, as far as we know, use OSM data ODbL licensed by the
foundation.
Simon
Am 12.01.2014 13:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 10/gen/2014 um 13:01 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute minimal
requirements we
Am 13.01.2014 13:17, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
.
given that the OSM attribution is given equal prominence with their
own Terms and their imagery attribution. (By the way, Alex and Eric
from MapBox are members of this mailing list.) Surely should be given
equal prominence with the map
I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile
browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so far
that we want OSM attribution on everything :-)
Am 14.01.2014 12:38, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 14/gen/2014 um 10:54 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
Am 14.01.2014 14:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014/1/14 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch
I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile
browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so
far that we want OSM attribution
Am 27.02.2014 01:03, schrieb Luis Villa:
...
Note that this is a substantially different task for 4.0 than for 3.0,
because 4.0 (particularly BY-SA) now includes a database copyleft
clause. Assessing how the ODBL and CC BY-SA 4.0 database clauses
interact will be challenging. OSM/Open Data
Do you have any indication from when the data may be? At least roughly
pre/post licence change (pre-licence change data would naturally pose a
number of questions)?
In general attribution of OSM in the context of non-map uses is not
particularly good and hasn't been policed at the same level. We
By far not the first and likely not the last, attributing OSM to google.
Send them a nice e-mail pointing out openstreetmap.org/copyright and for
added brownie points they should include a link to
openstreemap.org/fixthemap
If they don't react or fix it, send a note to the LWG.
Simon
Am
Their are quite a few facets of this issue, just some of many:
- do you actually have access to an original copy? Obviously who ever is
providing access to an online version is completely free to define
whatever ToS they want.
- sweat of the brow provisions as Eugene mentions
- dead for
Most has already been said on this topic. Just one comment on the,
superficially sane sounding, idea of getting a declaratory judgement:
forgetting the ethical side of it (do we really want to use data
collected by somebody that doesn't want us to do so?), we would need
such a judgement in -every-
done so and that we should
respect, regardless of legalities*.
Simon
* depending on jurisdiction this could go far further that copyright,
database and contract law, for example unfair competition legislation
and so on.
Am 08.04.2014 10:23, schrieb Pieren:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Simon
Am 08.04.2014 10:55, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-04-08 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch:
@Martin It is undoubtedly so that the information in question is -not-
simply available for use. You need to invest the time and effort to
actually
Am 08.04.2014 16:16, schrieb Paulo Carvalho:
..
I guess I missed something. Can you, please, explain that? I didn't
get the IP issues part and consequently why Google unlikely would be
the problem. That leads to the question about who would pose problems.
There is simply a
Am 15.04.2014 18:56, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Interestingly even the OSMF is infracting the license ;-)
Nope, non of the content on that page was uploaded or provided by the
OSMF. In fact we have only recently taken control of the account.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
The LWG might actually publish a formal guideline on the subject, but my
informal 2c for now:
- it is fairly clear that you -could- import 3rd party ODbL licensed
data under the CT (naturally assuming every other box for an import has
been ticked too). The CTs only require compatibility with the
1 - 100 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
