Chris Browet wrote[1]:
The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the
project also have commercial interests in the OSM data
Wut?
I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor.
We do have maps in our magazine but we (well, I) make them
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:21, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Chris Browet wrote[1]:
The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the
project also have commercial interests in the OSM data
Wut?
I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a
Chris Browet wrote:
The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the
project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me
nervous and doubtful.
looking at Frederik this statement sounds offending to me! HINT: I don't
want to comment on the other persons
On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it?
The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the
same answers...
In their original email. I wasn't quite sure of the context, thus I wrote
On 20 August 2010 06:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think we're all at fault here because when NearMap images became availalbe
for tracing, the whole license change process was already in motion and the
This is a symptom of a much larger problem in OSM, I wasted time
asking for
On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to
be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer,
which can't be quoted directly.
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:43 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010 06:40, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
At
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't
know.
If I, as a company director, in Australia, receive legal advice obtained for
that company, I can share it with the entire Board, and then the Board makes
the decision on with whom
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:51 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010 06:48, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Where did I question it's accuracy?
You said ... Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and
going along with it?
That's not me questioning their accuracy. You were saying
On 19 August 2010 22:05, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points
to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I
don't personally feel is very cool.
That's just another words to say not
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:33 PM, SteveC wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
hostage in this way.
I sure hope you've tried your best to listen to their points and
explain yours, and come to an absolute impasse, before accusing them
Hi all
As you may have noticed, if you follow the mailing lists, there's been a
certain amount of discussion about using NearMap aerial imagery (which we
call PhotoMaps) as a source for generating OSM data, in the light of the
current Contributor Terms (CTs, as currently shown at
However, there are a couple of problems with the CTs.
First: paragraph 2 of the CTs requires that an OSM user grants the OSMF a
very wide ranging licence (a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright
over anything
Am 19.08.2010 12:23, schrieb Chris Browet:
I, as a OSM contributor, am looking to allow free and unrestricted
access to map data to everybody.
Thank you, Ben, to announce this on OSM-talk. I'd like to invite
everybody that wants to discuss on this topic to come over to Legal-talk
at
Let's keep the Talk-List clean from Legal discussions. Anybody is welcome
to join it on Legal-talk.
Sorry, but I've seen those kind of invitations, too.
I'm not subscribed to Legal-talk and have no interest in the obscure legal
details.
General discussion about the new License/CT belongs to
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:01, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
You are missing the problem that OSMF needs those rights to be able to
publish the data and ensure that someone cannot come back later and
take a lawsuit against OSM for publishing their contributed data or
demands
On 19 August 2010 12:18, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
It might very well be true.
I still think a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,snip
free.
Basically, the OSMF asks us to trust it because it doesn't trust us, right?
No. The OSMF is protecting itself from being
Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
I, as a OSM contributor, am looking to allow free and unrestricted access to
map data to everybody.
Those clauses would mean that, potentially, I wouldn't be mapping for
humanity but for the OSMF.
You don't really map for humanity now, but for yourself.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
Let's keep the Talk-List clean from Legal discussions. Anybody is welcome
to join it on Legal-talk.
Sorry, but I've seen those kind of invitations, too.
I'm not subscribed to Legal-talk and have no interest in the
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
OSMF is just a legal entity to do things. OSM is the project.
There are people behind. I was a part of the OSM project as soon as I
contributed and I am not part of OSMF. Those are thus 2 different things.
You access OSMF paid for resources
It is possible to change the legal status of something without affecting
the community. For example the gold standard was removed making the dollar a
Fiat currency without an economic meltdown.
Might be a bad example ;-) Some argue the disappearance of the gold standard
(and subsequently
On 19/08/2010 9:37 PM, Nic Roets wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com
mailto:c...@semperpax.com wrote:
Let's keep the Talk-List clean from Legal discussions. Anybody
is welcome to join it on Legal-talk.
Sorry, but I've seen those kind of
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:29, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.comwrote:
Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
I, as a OSM contributor, am looking to allow free and unrestricted access
to
map data to everybody.
Those clauses would mean that, potentially, I wouldn't be mapping for
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.auwrote:
Um, what happened in October 2008?
If you look at the percentage change in US GDP and you compare it to the
1800s and the early 1900s, then you will come to the conclusion that nothing
happened. The economic
On 19/08/2010 9:58 PM, Chris Browet wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:29, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com
mailto:pdora...@mac.com wrote:
Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com mailto:c...@semperpax.com wrote:
I've seen often that the reply to this argument is that we must
They definitely need to define that, it would help. an OSI endorsed free
and open license, maybe...
- Chris -
Then you'd be trusting OSI rather than OSMF.
As to define what a free and open source licence is? Absolutely.
___
talk mailing list
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:15, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.auwrote:
Um, what happened in October 2008?
If you look at the percentage change in US GDP and you compare it to the
1800s and the early 1900s, then you
Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
You don't really map for humanity now, but for yourself. The actual
licence grant YOU rights on the data you put in OSM database, the change
is to give those rights the the OSMF that would represent the OSM
community.
Agreed, but given the
Hi,
this discussion must move to legal-talk.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Then you don't want OSMF to be granted for rights on contributors
contributions but you're perfectly OK if a compagny take OSM data and
use it for a commercial product without sharealike or copyrights...
So it seems you prefer a private compagny stole our works than a
foundation (you can
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
this discussion must move to legal-talk.
If we don't change the contributor terms, then we lose NearMap.
That's not a legal discussion.
___
talk mailing list
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
On 19 August 2010 12:18, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
It might very well be true.
I still think a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,snip
free.
Basically, the OSMF asks us to
If it's about NearMap, then talk-au seems more appropriate.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
this discussion must move to legal-talk.
If we don't change the contributor terms, then we
On 20 August 2010 00:59, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
If it's about NearMap, then talk-au seems more appropriate.
While that may currently be true, they claim to be planning to image
some European cities on a monthly basis, I've asked for a rough time
line indication.
It is not only about NearMap, we have tens of goverment sources which
requires attribution.
It *is* talk list issue. It is about future of the project.
Cheers,
Peter.
2010/8/19 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:
If it's about NearMap, then talk-au seems more appropriate.
On Thu, Aug
On 20 August 2010 05:23, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word of
the license. We can debate for the next millennia the meaning of a future
free and open license under the specific wording of what that might mean.
These
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
It's holding the past data hostage I don't personally feel is very cool.
Agree that it isn't cool but then again everyone is doing it - i mean
how often have read I am against the license, if you go ahead then
prepare to delete X. Makes me want to go there and throw the
Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not only about NearMap, we have tens of goverment sources which
requires attribution.
Yes but not really sure of the kinf of attribution.
For example here in France, the fiscal administration allow us (OSM
contributors) to use the cadastre (1)
2010/8/19 Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com:
Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not only about NearMap, we have tens of goverment sources which
requires attribution.
Yes but not really sure of the kinf of attribution.
For example here in France, the fiscal administration
Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see incompatibility here, or do i miss something ?
Do OSM have to put the name of all the attribution for the maps
displayed ?
Do the new licence/CT require that we do not use the source tag
anymore ?
Anyone can remove source tag
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Cheers and have nice copyright violation day,
The legal-talk list is an excellent place to discuss about copyright and
its applicability to geodata, and indeed has been for the last few years.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ##
Steve,
I'm trying to be on your side.
But as chairman of the OSMF board, you really need to pick your words
better. By saying which every rational person I know thinks is the best
step forward - the ODbL, you are implying that a lot of people are
irrational.
I see that your company recently
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
At this point in time we could be told
On 20 August 2010 02:01, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 August 2010 00:59, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
If it's about NearMap, then talk-au seems more appropriate.
While that may currently be true, they claim to be planning to image
some European cities
Apologies to SteveC; I only saw your email about posting to the legal list
after I'd sent this, and previous emails.
Regards
Ben
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com
Date: 20 August 2010 08:23
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM
47 matches
Mail list logo
