Frederik Ramm wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not
you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in
that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole
derivative db (or a diff of your changes)
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not
you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in
that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole
derivative db (or a diff
Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new
On 10/12/08, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goodness me, that's an enormously confrontational-sounding posting,
Whoops, it was meant to be more controversial than confrontational.
* I would like OSMF to publish the current licence
* IMHO OSMF should publish the licence
e.t.c
,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
Sent: 11 October 2008 00:18
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Simon Ward wrote
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876
messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.
Me too. ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has
already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests
used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Could I please ask
Dair Grant wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database
offered
under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make
up all the
differences between the Database and the Derivative Database.
Assuming I choose option
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You publicly Use a Derivative Database
You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database a copy in a
machine readable form of:
a. The entire Derivative Database; or
b. A file containing all of the alterations
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:05:23PM -0700, Mikel Maron wrote:
If this were about code, the belief would be that every time someone compiled
that code into running software, that binary would need to be freely
available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for software. But you would have
this
Simon Ward wrote:
I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their
source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people.
...
The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere
translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived
Mikel Maron wrote:
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
format. I
Hi,
If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source
planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation
that you couldn't do better with the planet dump?
I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some
kind of doomsday
Frederik Ramm wrote:
2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like within a reasonable
time frame to alleviate the problem for people who try to process
current data.
It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not
you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Dair Grant wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their
source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people.
...
The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some
kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived
product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived
product
Hi,
80n wrote:
If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to
operate on exactly the same basis as the original project.
On closer inspection, this will never be possible. If you fork OSM,
under the old OR new license, you will not take the data from the
individual
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not
you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in
that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole
derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you
Hi,
80n wrote:
And, of course, the same rules will also apply to the main OSM database,
Will they?
I always thought that in the future, what I contribute to OSM is not a
database, and OSM is not a database aggregator, but instead I contribute
individual data items, which only become a
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
And, of course, the same rules will also apply to the main OSM database,
Will they?
I always thought that in the future, what I contribute to OSM is not a
database, and OSM is not a database
Hi,
80n wrote:
There's no dispensation in the proposed license for a Master
database.
But there is a distinction between a database and data. I always
thought that what I collect with my GPS is just data, and only becomes
a database when combined with the work of others and arranged in a
Ramm
Sent: 09 October 2008 00:43
To: Iván Sánchez Ortega
Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Namely, by spending that time, IIRC, you have created a derived DB (you
have
changed the format of the data
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:48:07AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the
martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the
dataset has merely been processed into a different format.
Merely processing into a
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:26:05AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
I can think of three types of material changes that we would want
contributed back to OSM:
[1] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the accuracy of a Feature
geometry.
[2] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:09:09AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
Peter Miller wrote:
1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the
martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the
dataset has merely been processed into a different format.
On the face of it this sounds reasonable, although I can see there being
Hi,
1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the
martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the
dataset has merely been processed into a different format.
On the face of it this sounds reasonable, although I can see there being
some
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Namely, by spending that time, IIRC, you have created a derived DB (you have
changed the format of the data). You have to let people extract data from
*that* DB.
So OpenStreetMap would really have to publish psql dumps of the data
structure created by
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió:
Database – A collection of Data arranged in a systematic or methodical
way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered
under the terms of this Licence. This includes the Database as protected
by Database
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iván Sánchez Ortega
Sent: 08 October 2008 21:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Sunburned Surveyor
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iván Sánchez Ortega
Sent: 08 October 2008 23:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Frederik Ramm
Hi,
To be clear if you are only using the standard public OSM Dataset then you
wouldn't have to publish any derivative dataset because there isn't one.
I don't think we should over-regulate things but technically, strictly,
legally speaking if you run osm2pgsql on the planet file you have
El Jueves, 9 de Octubre de 2008, Peter Miller escribió:
The share-alike licenses, however, control the *way* you have to release
the data, *if* you want to release it.
I think we want someone who derives a better/new DB from OSM data to make
that available if they use that data for
34 matches
Mail list logo
