2009/3/5 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On 27 Feb 2009, at 05:04, Ben Laenen wrote:
It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step
towards the new license, so everyone check
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Let me start with the
Simon Ward simon at bleah.co.uk writes:
Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated
that everything should be reverted to before each incompatible change.
I wanted to make the general point that while technically we can devise rules
for deciding what changes are
Tobias Knerr schrieb:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I have never mapped anything thinking
hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I
can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an
exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data
It would be great to require that only free software could use OSM
maps. I saw other peoples agreement on this when we discussed
someone's 3D viewer for OSM data, and the #1 comment on this mailing
list was we shouldn't glorify the use of non-free software.
Proprietary routing software on
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 23:47, Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote:
And what to users who do not log in with a browser?
Send them email. If they don't respond in some time (few weeks?) by
visiting their account, deny them access to uploading new data. That
will make them look in their
MP wrote:
We have now tool to convert OSM data to garmin format (Mkgmap).
The tool is opensource. Garmin can do routing (at least I assume it can,
I don't posses any garmin devices or software myself) and is closed
source. Would the new license make mkgmap unusable/illegal with
odbl'd
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 23:50, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 03/03/09 18:39, Matthias Julius wrote:
It is not that simple. What if those 5% is half of South Africa? You
certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South
Africa.
...which is why this is an
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google
Well, this is disallowed completely in first place.
And so is importing the CC-BY-SA contributions into a new map which is not
licensed CC-BY-SA. If one is disallowed then so is the other.
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing
contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to
convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
non-relicensing
contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Ed Avis wrote:
The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to
delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit
permission, and all data that depends on it. Period.
I agree that the only legal sound way to do it is by removing all
2009/3/4 80n 80n...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
non-relicensing
contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
In the worst case, in the event of a dispute,
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote:
[routing source code]
I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate
but rather difficult to close
Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But:
[...]
we can just declare that it should meet sharelike
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.ukwrote:
2009/3/4 80n 80n...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
non-relicensing
contributor would have to be
Dave Stubbs wrote:
But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice.
Absolutely.
Steve actually answers this in his (very good IMO) Licence to kill post.
You can theoretically work out a complicated Boolean system of is this
derived from an ODbL refusenik's work?. You can read every bit of
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
What really makes the difference, [...]
is intent. Intent, and acting in good faith at all times.
Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license
(which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and
Steve have just
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
I thought of one improvement - in addition to allowing people to
consent to new license, allow them also to (completely voluntary)
agree to Public domain their contributions. Some of the people on
wikipedia (though not nearly a majority) does that for
Hi,
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Main OSM database is not a
place to store PD data to be extracted out afterwards. I suppose it is not
even
OK to add POIs with Potlatch and read them back to JOSM for making a local
copy.
That is disputed; there are those who say that something cannot lose its
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
We don't actually have a clean dataset. Nowhere near.
The reason we haven't been sued is exactly the same. Intent and good faith.
You are right. So what is the way of dealing with a relicensing that preserves
the intent of the contributors and
Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com writes:
Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded
as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing
towards its origin.
Although the way is new, don't the nodes along it keep their identity?
Or another example: I can
Also, technically, when mixing licenses, we won't have mashup of
cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to
relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense
later under odbl.
I guess that would work. The resulting collection would be distributable
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:
Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license
(which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and
Steve have just discounted), and instead write an one-page statement of
intent that says how we'd like
Hi!
Frederik Ramm wrote:
[..]
Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then [..]
and instead write an one-page statement of
intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and
that's it?
I don't want to sound stupid or offensive, but - sarcastic or whatever
- I absolutely
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the
avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM
foundation
(which is the entity which has collated together all of the individual
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab at gmail.com writes:
For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the
avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM
foundation (which is the entity which has collated together all of the
individual bits of mapmaking
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 08:19, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com writes:
Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded
as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing
towards its origin.
Although the way is new, don't the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA licence
because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by Wikipedia and
other collections of free content.
Not a helpful suggestion. It's been
Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com writes:
Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA
licence because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by
Wikipedia and other collections of free content.
Not a helpful suggestion.
Isn't this rather prejudging the
On 04/03/09 10:51, MP wrote:
Thayt is the worst thing - now you don't know who will agree to new
license and who don't (unless you have some magic crystal ball). So
you don't know which data are going to be removed and how much of them
would it be until the last moment.
Right. And then we
Ed Avis wrote:
I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not
'Crown Database Right'
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22
:)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not
'Crown Database Right'
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22
Heh. My maps are too old to
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:43, Ed Avis wrote:
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not
'Crown Database Right'
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22
Heh. My maps are too old to have this.
That would be an uphill battle, but there is a chance you might win. If you
have old digital map data, you might
Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com writes:
The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the UK/EU
map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights).
In that case what is http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 referring to with its
'curious unlicensed limbo' remark?
--
Peter Miller wrote:
The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the
UK/EU map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights).
I will quote the following from an Ordnance Survey agreement as much for
people's amusement as for edification.
Intellectual Property Rights
Hi!
Steve Chilton schrieb:
Having said all that, my real point is that I
know a lot of traditional cartographers (some in a commercial
environment and some not) and have observed an actual reluctance to
consider using OSM data. This might be surprising given that OSM has
always said
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:18:48AM +, Ed Avis wrote:
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing
contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated
that everything
OK, so lets assume that some data would have to be deleted (hopefully
not lot of them, otherwise it would probably kill the project and
spawn some forks with complete cc-by-sa data). Where there is the
exact line between deleted and kept data is on another debate, but I
wonder the way how the data
On 27 Feb 2009, at 05:04, Ben Laenen wrote:
It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step
towards the new license, so everyone check
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Let me start with the obvious questions first:
* why don't
Hi!
Ed Loach schrieb:
As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could
abuse it and not lose any data with the switch.
Yep, we would just loose the people and the credibility.
This could only be considerd a last resort for data of people that still
cannot be reached
I wrote:
As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we
could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch.
And before the flood of emails - I forgot the smiley.
I'm sure I read somewhere lots of suggestions about what would
happen to various items based on whether the
wer-ist-roger wrote:
First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the
new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new
license or we just can't reach them anymore.
There's three categories to consider relating to existing data.
1. People who have made edits
I can't see how any plan that involves deleting non-trivial amounts of
data is ever going to work anyway as who is going to stop people from
re-uploading the data with minor changes to tags and all the nodes moved
by a metre or two?
Kevin
Ed Loach wrote:
I wrote:
As I think someone
Hi,
wer-ist-roger wrote:
But we could lose even more! The ones that don't agree on the change might
start a fork and that would be the worst thing that could happen.
That's why we talk to each other before taking the next step. If people
feel rushed or left out then they are likely to fork;
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
There's three categories to consider relating to existing data.
1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted.
2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data.
3. Large organisations.
I have a fourth category to add:
4. People who don't dislike
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
There's three categories to consider relating to existing data.
1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted.
2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data.
3. Large organisations.
I have a fourth category to add:
Hi,
Ulf Lamping wrote:
We're only loosing 5% of the
data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data
but because of the people behind that data.
Well, we always said we have unlimited free labour ,-)
But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in
the long run
Ulf Lamping wrote:
Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind
the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that
has open in his name ...
If it helps, there _isn't_ anything going on behind the scenes... well, at
least not that I know of.
Post in German, or
A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping
work would probably be a very good idea. We're only loosing 5% of the
data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data
but because of the people behind that data.
Losing 5% of data will do much more
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get
the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this
percentage should be very small.
except that the ODbL does represent
OJ W wrote:
This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are
doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-
reserved map images based on their data.
Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell
all-rights-reserved, closed-source
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some
transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but
we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming
from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
OJ W wrote:
This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are
doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-
reserved map images based on their data.
Yeah, just like I lie in bed
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get
the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing
of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will
only require attribution?
That is hos the license is understood by most people,
Pieren wrote:
It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with
the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer
the following questions:
It's not been decided. What do you think should happen?
Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be
licensed as copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has
exclusive rights to their added value (colours, selection of data to
include, and so on), which are clearly apparent
Ed Avis wrote:
What you wrote above is a very good argument for it.
Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort.
Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many
people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to
make the result
2009/3/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get
the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger juwelier-onl...@web.dewrote:
The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the
wiki
page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is
nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the
On 03/03/09 09:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which
it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make
sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed
away or simply ignored because this would
I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some
transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but
we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming
from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with
some special tag. Let
2009/3/3 MP singular...@gmail.com:
I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some
transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but
we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming
from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which
it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make
sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed
away or simply ignored because this would just delay
Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net writes:
80n wrote:
What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see
sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?
I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats.
If (say) we lose 5%, how many months
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:28:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the
license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the
following questions:
My take:
- do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to
the
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking
What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The program code for
that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating
the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the free
world with ODbL.
Then we need to make sure as many tools as possible are free software,
and
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 schrieb Gustav Foseid:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger juwelier-onl...@web.dewrote:
The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the
wiki
page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database
is nothing
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in reaching the
goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and not a
*creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it allows us
Thank you for your post Frederick!
I've been lurking on this discussion for awhile and you just summed up
exactly my thoughts on it.
Hi,
OJ W wrote:
Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that
cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can
use
OJ W wrote:
If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my
contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
GPS then it reduces
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial
battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most
restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy everything is
CC-BY-SA level
Hi!
OJ W schrieb:
If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with
WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view,
modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might
decide I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to
these
Everything is up for debate.
For me, this license change resembles the EULA story with openSuse, see
http://zonker.opensuse.org/2008/11/26/opensuse-sports-a-new-license-ding-dong-the-eulas-dead/
and
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/opensuse-ends-eula
At least in Germany, this EULA story
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I have never mapped anything thinking
hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I
can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an
exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data
being collected, and were
OJ W wrote:
[routing source code]
I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate
but rather difficult to close
Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But:
[...]
we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to
ensure that OSM players
- if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are
only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous
version of these objects ?
Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the
new licence are made.
This could be perhaps optimized: if
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:33:56AM +0100, MP wrote:
This could be perhaps optimized: if user A creates some
highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it
to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't.
But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Hi,
OJ W wrote:
Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that
cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can
use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to
the map images being sharealike)
This is your
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license -
what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to
warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in
database?
I don't think that would work. If some
Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes:
I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of
the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes).
I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything.
This seems rather apocalyptic. What
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway
because facts are not copyrightable.
With that relaxed view I'd be copying teleatlas maps by now.
On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license -
what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to
warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data
2009/3/2 MP singular...@gmail.com:
On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license -
what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to
warn people that this part is
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new
license - what about tagging such data with some tag like
license=cc_by_sa
I don't think that would work.
Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even
with mixed license.
If
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Ed Avis escribió:
Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes:
I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the
integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes).
I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than
This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and
how would changing to a different licence avoid that?
It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to
databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data.
So you mean the
So now we are talking about changing the OSM license. On the one hand I agree
that this is necessary but we have to be quite sure that this is the right
thing to do. We might lose more during this process then we gain:
First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the new
El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió:
Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse
the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill
published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse
the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 03:39, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote:
El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió:
Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse
the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill
published under cc-by-sa instead of
Hi!
MP schrieb:
This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose
everything' and
how would changing to a different licence avoid that?
It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being
enforceable to
databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the
Hi!
MP schrieb:
What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to
ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something
similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa
An extremely bad idea. This is the perfect way to alienate people even
more and
Well, then there is question: what is worse?
1. Have all the data, but risk someone abusing it?
2. Or force the license change, therefore enforcing the share-
alike
rights correctly, but tossing some data away?
Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to
abuse
the
On 28/02/09 12:21, 80n wrote:
What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see
sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? We should
probably exclude mass donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway. So
what percentage of *user contributed* data would other
On Feb 27, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
I think it's pretty unarguable that, in the UK, your tracing of the
Peruvian
lakes would merit copyright or similar protection (as sweat-of-the-
brow).
Both
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
I think that the reason that the US only protects creativity and not facts
is because the US doesn't want to give out a monopoly on a set of facts
about the world. I'm unfamiliar with how sweat-of-the-brow works. Does
it
Ben Laenen wrote:
Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had
some things to say there.
Yes, I'm sure you did. But what I was trying to say is that (IMO) the really
important bit is this:
My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
fundamental issues
On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in
legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available.
Seriously - who is this you?!!!
With you I mean the
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in
legal-talk or wherever since you now made the
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
