Lars Aronsson schrieb:
The perpetual discussion over licenses is very tiring,
but I can put up with that. What I just can't tolerate
is this kind of argument that professional lawyers
have some absolute authority, that trumps every
contributor's opinion. I'm not saying that these
lawyers are
On 07/23/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess you're saying the lawyers who have advised the OSMF are not
reasonable people?
The perpetual discussion over licenses is very tiring,
but I can put up with that. What I just can't tolerate
is this kind of argument that professional lawyers
have
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
What I just can't tolerate
is this kind of argument that professional lawyers
have some absolute authority, that trumps every
contributor's opinion. I'm not saying that these
lawyers are wrong, but the argument that they
On 07/24/2010 05:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using
On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would
violate CC-BY-SA.
Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB
Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are
*generally* mutually incompatible
Rob Myers schrieb:
Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare
other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be
relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet.
So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible
Hi,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to
declare other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives
to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible
yet.
So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Is that a topic that's been discussed before on this mailing list?
Here it is in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations
[quote]
If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create
On 07/26/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony wrote:
Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all
elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data*
encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA.
No, it means the produced work is BY-SA.
Which means anybody
On 26 July 2010 17:19, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to
include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating
the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA.
Could you please point out to me code that is
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote:
Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License It does not say this article is
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
work without following the terms of ODbL.
Nowhere. However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to
those that cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
work without following the terms of ODbL.
Nowhere.
Then you don't have permission to do so. At least not
2010/7/23 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:
If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected
by. There may be copyright, which may protect the
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data
of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits
from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ...
I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright
statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the
finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org
and
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright
statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the
On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright
statement, the default is
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
On 25 July 2010 00:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I propose 3) Occam's Razor
How does 'the simplest explanation is usually the correct one' apply here?
the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few
years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong
I'd be
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been
involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers
are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or
the other
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved
in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all
wrong and suddenly Anthony
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
* Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM
data in a new work (eg mashups)
The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that
On 24/07/10 16:49, SteveC wrote:
Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Steve
That's ad hominem tu quoque.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque
TimSC
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves.
Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial.
Relicencing derivative works is trivial.
Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change
On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy
off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention
copyright as BY is a copyright licence.)
I think his point is about ODBL and not extending
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves.
I don't follow.
Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy
off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention
copyright
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been
involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers
are all wrong
Steve
And the advice of those lawyers that didn't suit you, such as
On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:25 PM, 80n wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been involved
in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong
Steve
And the advice of
Richard Weait schrieb:
Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be CC-By-SA. Currently published planets,
for example are CC-By-SA and will stay that way. No data loss.
The data is still there. Still CC-By-SA.
Yes indeed. Including ...
We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to
Hi,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data
of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits
from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ...
I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data
Hi,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
A real ODBL-OSM can only be build with home copies of the data
of the contributors who said yes. They cannot copy their own edits
from CC-OSM, because this also will be a condensation of CC-OSM ...
I don't think so. Copyright is not based on the physical path that data
2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:
If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected
by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If
there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assume All
rights reserved, provided there's any
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:
If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected
by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If
there's nothing written
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
James Livingston li...@... writes:
The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material
(e.g.
a planet dump) on your website without requiring people to agree to a
contract a
violation of the ODbL?.
I
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of ordered
ones and zeros. It's on media of some type. You might sell the disk
as is, but copying the data and selling it would be legally risky. A
Reasonable
On 07/23/2010 02:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure anyone credible has claimed that [ODbL] is a free license. The
purpose of a free license is to grant permissions, not to impose
restrictions.
The purpose of a free licence is to protect people's freedom.
PD dedications and BSD licences
On 07/23/2010 04:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
Though, I'd say license is somewhat of a disingenuous term for
something which is actually an EULA.
Well, CC get to call CC0 not a licence. ;-)
I agree that the ODbL isn't just a licence, but I don't think it's any
more accurate to call it a EULA.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
snip
Enough of preamble, so here again I would like to ask the question again:
What is the criterion of when critical mass is reached and thus data is
lost (even if it isn't lost as data, it is lost to the project and the
(editing) community)? Who
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as
90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a
On 24 July 2010 00:02, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
On 23 July 2010 22:14, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of ordered
ones and zeros. It's on media of some type. You
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high
On 20/07/2010, at 9:10 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data
available doesn't make the data public domain.
Indeed.
The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material
(e.g. a planet dump) on your website without
Hi,
On 19 July 2010 23:16, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the
contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given
with the data. They
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
replacement licence.
It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F
On 19 July 2010 11:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
replacement
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the
fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
On 19 July 2010 21:04, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
If I follow that analogy, I can then use data from TeleAtlas if someone
breaches the contract, which is not the case. The licence is found on their
data.
Since when does contract law work that way?
The difference here is
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in
order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the
bus. :-/
Which is what I'm curious about, what makes ODBL copyright stick if
cc-by-sa
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for
massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which
would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:33:44 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in
order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on
the
bus. :-/
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:58:25 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases
no they go much further, they say it shouldn't and that all
On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the
fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers
are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should.
Simon
--
A complex system
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the
contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given
with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they
didn't
On 19 July 2010 22:07, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map
providers
are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Just because everyone else
On 19 July 2010 22:16, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.
To the best of my knowledge,
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.
A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the
mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a
reference or an example to follow.
Why do we need contract law at all?
I know
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:53 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the
mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a
reference or an example to
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 20 July 2010 09:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course not. But if the data is *already* public domain, then violating a
contract and making the data available doesn't take it out of the public
domain either.
Isn't breach of contract the method that was used to put the tiger
data into
On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
I'm left wondering if this problem is
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
You could pay your own lawyer to check it then?
Steve
stevecoast.com
On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
Go ask on odc-discuss?
Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:33:48 +0100, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on
creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
I know
On 17/07/10 10:00, 80n wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org
mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we
thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to
something *completely*
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for
massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which
On 19 July 2010 23:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then I don't see what's wrong with CC-BY-SA.
There is no proof there is anything wrong with it, just conjecture and
speculation it might not be good enough.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:58 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
Go ask on odc-discuss?
Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer?
You're right, much
On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be
able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put
to contributors.
I will, but at that point I will no longer have any chances to
exercise
On 16/07/10 14:03, TimSC wrote:
James Livingston wrote:
/ Although, as Simon Ward said Everyone has a say on whether their contributions
can be licensed under the new license., I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I
resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we
were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely*
different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty.
On 07/17/2010 04:04 AM, Diane Peters wrote:
The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that
copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct.
I am sorry for misrepresenting SC's views on this.
One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another
suggestion
On 07/16/2010 09:58 PM, Liz wrote:
After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable
to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was
the subject of the case.
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright
licences
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show
names, IceTV who instigated this
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on
creativity. ;-)
On 07/17/2010 04:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright
licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 18 July 2010 06:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
You implied one or more people made that claim, what was their
reasoning for this?
On 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
I know you didn't. But somebody did.
What's your source for the
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the EU, to name but two.
When did EU member nations agree to become a country?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote:
The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
is to fork it.
How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can
fork it? That works too.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more
than obvious I'm bucking the trend...
Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so
vocal… ;)
Simon
--
A complex system that works is
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all
contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
willing to contribute their data under that license.
Given that that has been the
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
The new contributor rights also waters down my effective
veto rights to control future licenses.
That's one of its great strengths - 150,000 people each with a veto is
not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to
On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote:
Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote
were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the
ODbL.
Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to
have a better understanding of data law.
(different
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
