SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
I'm personally thinking at this stage that a better solution
would be for the license move to ODbL to include
a fork as part of the agreement, so everyone contributes their
data as both ODbL and/or PD, not just move to
ODbL. We could host a PD or CC0
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server
This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data.
This is Google - it's what they do best.
___
talk mailing
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server
This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data.
This is Google - it's
2010/1/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
You're being very logical and geeky, but ignoring the social element here.
Ignoring CC and just pulling the data in might satisfy you but would then
annoy a far greater set of people who we should at least honor the ideals
with which they signed up and
2010/1/19 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Yeah, Google would probably quickly start importing data from the PD OSM
into its products. That alone would be enough to cause me to contribute.
Why aren't you helping out with map maker then if you care that much?
I'd love to be able to correct errors that
2010/1/19 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data. Just
The bigger problem will be how can OSM do that, which is why I'm
suggesting that people could tag with the license information, it
would then already be incorporated into OSM :)
2010/1/19 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
It isn't working for Google and/or TomTom - it's working for the
public, i.e. everyone and everything (including Google and TomTom).
If the public gives back they could already be using OSM data... why
is it a good thing to spend time, effort, money
2010/1/19 Aun Yngve Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org:
Yahoo have imported OSM data for some while, though I think they take it as
a sort of payment for our usage of their hi-res aerial service.
Don't you mean flickr?
___
talk mailing list
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/19 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
It isn't working for Google and/or TomTom - it's working for the
public, i.e. everyone and everything (including Google and TomTom).
If the public gives back they could
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
...
and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
that the changes won't be public domain.
Nice idea, but the main difficulty I see is that contributing to
openstreetmap is a collaborative
2010/1/17 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
that the changes won't be public domain.
Nice idea, but the main difficulty I see is that
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 08:34, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
that the changes won't be public domain.
Nice idea, but the main
2010/1/17 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com:
Why would it be difficult? If a node was created under license X and
has only been edited by other users allowing license X then it's under
license X.
If I understand correctly, Roy thinks this might start a free for all
on licenses, which
That's not how the ODBL works. When the switch is made to the ODBL, every
individual changeset/node/way/etc will be effectively in the PD (everyone in
the world will have a non-revocable license to do anything restricted by
copyright law). Only the database as a whole will be under ODBL.
On
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
That's not how the ODBL works. When the switch is made to the ODBL, every
individual changeset/node/way/etc will be effectively in the PD (everyone in
the world will have a non-revocable license to do anything restricted by
copyright law). Only the database
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
That's not how the ODBL works. When the switch is made to the ODBL,
every
individual changeset/node/way/etc will be effectively in the PD (everyone
in
the world will have a
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
Or, will be when/if the new contributor terms are adopted.
___
talk mailing list
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another
license.
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:24 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
readily
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Why would it be difficult? If a node was created under license X and
has only been edited by other users allowing license X then it's under
license X.
Unless, some share-alike advocates would say, the node was created with
reference to a point Y that was
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
So one person needs to anonymously download everything from OSM and put it
up on another website which doesn't have the ODbL on it.
What you are suggesting is shady at best, and is no better than
someone doing that with any other copyrighted material, it
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Why would it be difficult? If a node was created under license X and
has only been edited by other users allowing license X then it's under
license X.
Unless, some share-alike
2010/1/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Unless, some share-alike advocates would say, the node was created with
reference to a point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a
derived work.
Except lat/lon isn't copyrightable, so a point alone probably isn't
good enough to state
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
So one person needs to anonymously download everything from OSM and put
it
up on another website which doesn't have the ODbL on it.
What you are suggesting is shady at best, and
2010/1/17 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
readily accessible to all, not PD data
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It's certainly much more legal to copy material for which you have explicit
permission to copy than to copy material which is copyrighted and for which
you don't have permission to copy. See
Again, I'll leave the legal opinions up to others to debate with
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
How exactly does one get protection as a database owner? It's unclear
to me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're
not the ones actually doing anything.
You're right, just like Google doesn't own any of the data the GMM users
upload because
2010/1/18 DavidD thewi...@gmail.com:
OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and
reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors?
The point more is for new data, than existing, but this is to
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:42 AM, DavidD thewi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/17 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
That still isn't the point, people
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.orgwrote:
Anthony wrote:
How exactly does one get protection as a database owner? It's unclear to
me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
What you are suggesting is shady at best, and is no better than
someone doing that with any other copyrighted material, it doesn't
make it any more legal to simply take it than it would be to take MS
word uploaded somewhere.
There is a difference regarding downstream
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a contract
that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and say download and
use freely then
* I am in breach of contract
* anyone who downloads
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 15:42, DavidD thewi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/17 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
2010/1/18 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
That still isn't the point, people want to
2010/1/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
whereas if the data is not copyrighted, but given to me under a contract
that stipulates that I may not put it up on a web site and say download and
use freely then
Assuming the data isn't copyrightable, the vector + lat/lon
information may not be,
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
But I think you're missing the fact that sites which try to restrict
people from copying their databases pretty much universally do not
provide database dumps.
I don't think that matters at all. Whether or not a database dump is
provided universally, or by accident, or
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
But I think you're missing the fact that sites which try to restrict
people from copying their databases pretty much universally do not provide
database dumps.
I don't think that matters at all.
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 22:31, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/18 DavidD thewi...@gmail.com:
OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
people deal with that? Start replacing the
2010/1/18 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 22:31, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2010/1/18 DavidD thewi...@gmail.com:
OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How
38 matches
Mail list logo
