As a sanity check can I propose a few uses of OSM data and see if we think
they would be allowed, or not allowed, based on the proposed licence and
also if we would want them to be allowed or not. Can I suggest that we build
up a library of such scenarios and for each one discuss any legal
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:04:58AM +, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
The idea that
someone in around 100 years time will still have to struggle with the
license issues we are setting up now on my data really worries me
With your own
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is Parallel Distribution. We (the cc-licences mailing list)
discussed it during the CC 3.0 public review. My personal opinion is
that it is not a good idea because there is so much room for
mischief in it.
Personally I feel this is a good step forward from the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ps. does that mean that if someone has a 1993 or earlier postcode DB
lying around, we can bulk load it into Free the Postcode?
Probably not, as I expect that Royal Mail make you sign a contract
with them before they
El Martes, 5 de Febrero de 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro escribió:
Ps. does that mean that if someone has a 1993 or earlier postcode DB
lying around, we can bulk load it into Free the Postcode?
It depends.
It depends on your view over the copyrightability of individual pieces of
data.
If a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Aronsson wrote:
| Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
|
| I think that we should reduce the time before the data becomes
| public domain from year of editors death (which will be very
| hard for someone in 100 years time to find out) + 70 years to
| year
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
Ps. does that mean that if someone has a 1993 or earlier postcode DB
lying around, we can bulk load it into Free the Postcode?
Yes, it should be free. Or at least one from 1992 would have
become free at the end of December 31, 2007. Just like Project
Gutenberg,
tim wrote:
Sent: 04 February 2008 11:32 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Hello,
Few clarifications and questions about use cases.
If I distribute web mapping of my special company data and OSM, I
don't have
Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, exactly, does CC recommend CC0 even after they have thoroughly
looked at our situation, and on what basis does the OSMF board reject
the CC suggestion?
Please cross-post any such explanation/links to legal-talk.
I wish you luck on this, but
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I distribute web mapping of my special company data and OSM, I
don't have to give my data back to OSM, right? In other words, there's
no requirement to distribute, but also, if the map images are
distributed, then it doesn't
Quoting Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OSMF disagrees significantly with this assessment of a contractual
approach. Commercial geodata (TeleAtlas, Navteq etc.) is protected
this way.
Has this been tested in court though? Or has anything equivalent to
this been tested in court?
We
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
This is Parallel Distribution. We (the cc-licences mailing list)
discussed it during the CC 3.0 public review. My personal opinion is
that it is not a good idea because there is so much room for mischief
in it.
If you think it's a bad idea for another
Dear all
The OSMF has been actively investigating the license situation, in
that there are many problems with CCBYSAs application to data. We
think we have found a solution in the form of the Open Database
Licence [http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-database-licence/
]. This
Hello,
Few clarifications and questions about use cases.
If I distribute web mapping of my special company data and OSM, I
don't have to give my data back to OSM, right? In other words, there's
no requirement to distribute, but also, if the map images are
distributed, then it doesn't have to be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After all, with the FDL, there was enough room for mischief that a
GNU project declared its whole manual to be an invariant section and a
magazine that said its table of contents was an invariant section.
Those uses were
Hi,
By room for mischief I mean the ability to hand people restricted
work in practice. I mentioned the burden on redistributors as well.
Work may be Free Upstream, but it's important that it is Free On Actual
Delivery as well.
Not so important to me, to be honest. But we've been there
Hi,
Basically, pulling every piece of data individually and putting it togheter
again is a transformation of the OSM DB, AFAIK.
What if they crowdsource this? 1000s of people copy a tiny bit, and
someone then reassembles it ;-)
But to be quite honest, I don't care. If someone invests such an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Hughes wrote:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| Tom Evans wrote:
| If we're going to do this anyway, can we not allow users to mark
| their preference as public domain too? It seems a
El Martes, 5 de Febrero de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió:
Hi,
Basically, pulling every piece of data individually and putting it
togheter again is a transformation of the OSM DB, AFAIK.
What if they crowdsource this? 1000s of people copy a tiny bit, and
someone then reassembles it ;-)
If
MJ Ray wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
If you think it's a bad idea for another reason, then fine, but room
for mischief applies to almost all licences. Ultimately, whether
work is Free and Open with a capital F O is how it's actually handled
in practice.
By room for mischief I mean
20 matches
Mail list logo
