Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> Ævar, thanks for taking point on this... These sort of licensing
> issues are an annoying, but necessary part of our work and not
> everyone has the stomach for it. I myself have run into the issue
> locally... There's nearby county that has very high resolution aerial
> im
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmason wrote:
>
> NASA/METI have updated their distribution terms with a FAQ in response
> to my questions:
>
> https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/lpdaac/about/news_archive/friday_july_24_2009
>
> Unfortunately the new terms aren't new at all, and they sti
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> So, what we should do is to author a document (on the wiki?) which
> clearly explains why such terms which restrict redistribution and
> fields of endeavor mean that free content projects like OSM can't use
> the data and will have to
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>>
>> NASA = a US federal government organization. All data originated by US
>> federal organizations (and especially when funded by tax payer dollars) is
>> in the public domain. I would imagine
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
> NASA = a US federal government organization. All data originated by US
> federal organizations (and especially when funded by tax payer dollars) is
> in the public domain. I would imagine that the licensing terms they give are
> superseded by thes
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> For satellite imagery it would be a huge win even if we were allowed
> to just use them for tracing on a closed WMS server (as we're doing in
> Gaza), even if we ideally would like to be allowed to do more.
NASA = a US federal gove
(This thread was accidentally off-list)
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM, MP wrote:
>> As it turns out the first clause is (apparently) to facilitate
>> tracking of how the data is used and so that they can announce
>> updates, and the second is to ensure proper attribution. I've asked
>> them p
In such cases, wouldn't be enough to add a source=NASA or source=ASTER tag?
[]
2009/7/2 Tyler
> Ævar, Thanks for trying to get clarification. Despite my disagreeing that
> there is any real restriction on the data that affects its use in OSM,
> clarification and explicit permission is always a
Ævar, Thanks for trying to get clarification. Despite my disagreeing that
there is any real restriction on the data that affects its use in OSM,
clarification and explicit permission is always a good thing.
This should have been cross-posted to legal, probably. And let me preface it
all with IANAL
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> # When presenting or publishing ASTER GDEM data, I agree to include
> "ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA."
That clause seems very similar to the BSD advertising clause (and is
problematic for the same reasons):
http://en.wi
> As it turns out the first clause is (apparently) to facilitate
> tracking of how the data is used and so that they can announce
> updates, and the second is to ensure proper attribution. I've asked
> them permission to quote their complete reply but that's basically it.
What about derived da
I contacted people at NASA asking whether they were planning on
releasing their ASTER data under a license that would be suitable for
projects like OSM. I quoted them the terms they present upon download
which would be problematic:
"""
# I agree to redistribute the ASTER GDEM only to individuals w
12 matches
Mail list logo
