SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
I discovered that people are just rectifying using google aerial and
stuff, which breaks our paranoid/cautious stance on accepting
copyright derived work.
I speak now only about the i-cubed Landsat layer because OpenAerialMap does not
have anything
[cc:ed to legal-talk]
Andy Allan wrote:
That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and
haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they
explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived
works.
Probably the biggest thing I've learned
Steve Hill wrote:
Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen
anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database,
accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the
CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too.
They're not explicitly licensed
Hi,
Probably the biggest thing I've learned about copyright since getting
involved with OSM is how easy it is to overstate your rights as
copyright holder.
Most do it because they don't know better. (Some don't even write the
name Microsoft in a public article because tehy somehow think
I discovered that people are just rectifying using google aerial and
stuff, which breaks our paranoid/cautious stance on accepting
copyright derived work.
On 21 May 2008, at 21:55, Tomáš Tichý wrote:
What happened to Openaerialmap layer in Potlatch? I see only -
signs on the place
The wording of the main/first data source never filled me with
confidence either:
There is currently some question as to the licensing terms for this
data. This is being resolved as quickly as possible. Until then, it is
best to assume that this imagery can not be used outside of
OpenAerialMap.
Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com writes:
The wording of the main/first data source never filled me with
confidence either:
There is currently some question as to the licensing terms for this
data. This is being resolved as quickly as possible. Until then, it is
best to assume that
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Jukka Rahkonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that what is uncertain with OpenAerialMap is if the imagery that is
colour adjusted by i-Cubed can be taken out from OAM, not if you can do
derived
work based on it.
That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own
[cc:ed to legal-talk]
Andy Allan wrote:
That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and
haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they
explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived
works.
Probably the biggest thing I've learned
Is there any way to enable only safe data layers from OAM in Potlatch?
I am writing this, because there is black and white aerial imagery of
the Czech Republic from local goverment agency (UHUL), which permitted
to use it for OSM mapping. This imagery is now part of OAM data.
It is possible to
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or
rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS
traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.)
Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as
Steve Hill wrote:
Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen
anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database,
accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the
CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too.
They're not explicitly licensed
Hi,
Doesn't feel to me like a confident, unambigious, free to use in
OSM phrase.
On the other hand, we don't have anything in written from Yahoo!
either, so if you want to be paranoid then drop Yahoo as well.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09
What happened to Openaerialmap layer in Potlatch? I see only -
signs on the place where it was in menu.
Tomas Tichy
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
14 matches
Mail list logo
