80n schrieb:
As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was
grabbed at the last minute from here
It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment
page seem to be password protected.)
The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much
I'd like to clarify the reason for two (2) licenses. The FIL is being
considered for individual atoms of data, while the ODbL is being
considered for major chunks of the database?
Is this correct?
Would it be helpful to:
[1] Determine what is an atom that the FIL would apply to.
[2] Determine
The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license.
The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of
this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make
others aware of it.
Given that OSM data will always have content licensed using
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote:
The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license.
The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of
this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make
Hi,
When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that
they need to consider not the ODbL.
I propose that we start working on the wording of the messages that
users will receive, i.e. the initial E-Mail, and the dialogue messages
they see on osm.org when they are
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that
they need to consider not the ODbL.
I propose that we start working on the wording of the messages that
users will receive, i.e. the initial E-Mail, and the dialogue messages
they see
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It
was grabbed at the last minute from here
http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/
I don't
Hi,
80n wrote:
Apparently the sentence referring to the FIL in Grant's email was
inserted by Steve,
It is nice to know that Steve still speaks to this mailing list, even if
only through sentences inserted into other people's E-Mails.
Bye
Frederik
PS: If you find any Lolcat stuff in any of
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote:
The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license.
The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of
this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make
others
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Gustav Foseid escribió:
The Factual information license, seems to be a bit schizophrenic. It says
both that facts are free, and that these free facts cannot be used without
including a license...
That's called the stupid jurisdictions clause.
Just because facts
Ulf Möller wrote:
It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment
page seem to be password protected.)
Passport protection was a mistake and has now been removed.
/ Grant
___
legal-talk mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo
