Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
Andy Allan writes: Never mind what Richard says, there's also some other points 1) You can't actually put anything into the public domain in most jurisdictions. The best you can do yourself is use a special license, such as CC0, which achieves similar results, but strictly isn't the same - especially when it comes to moral rights Never mind what Andy says, you need to understand that judges aren't computers and lawyers aren't programmers. If you say Hey, I renounce my legal rights to sue you for copyright infringement because I want to share my data with the whole world without limitation, it's going to be extremely difficult for you to sue anybody. This is true even in systems of law that respect inalienable moral rights. 2) There's clearly not enough legalese there for it to be effective :-) Judges aren't computers, lawyers aren't programmers, and particularly, programmers aren't lawyers. 3) I can consider my edits public domain to my heart's content, but if they are based on other people's non-PD edits, then they aren't going to be fully PD. Sure, two plus one is three, but two plus zero is still two. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
SteveC writes: As in, why is the PD camp so loud here? First and foremost, because we believe that all the licensing kerfluffle will frighten people away from using the map. Because we all want a map that will actually be USED by the most people possible. Because we aren't afraid of forks (people who fork, fork themselves hardest). Because if somebody steals parts of the map, we will be able to tell, and won't hesitate to point it out. Because nobody can own public domain data; not even somebody who wishes they could slap a copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the people who think a reciprocal license solves a problem. The OSM strength of OSM is not the data; it's the people. The license doesn't protect the people; the people protect the people. Nobody can can steal, fork, clone, or whatever, our community. Data is dead; people are alive. Let's worry more about the people than the license on the data. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the people who think a reciprocal license solves a problem. Pushing things in a PD direction will cause just as many problems, there is no way you can have a one size fits all and then try to shoe horn everyone into that box: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Data Definition at OSCON
Russ, On 08/08/2010 06:34 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: Here are the questions we arrived at (thanks to Skud aka Kirrily Robert for taking notes): Good observations. Might be worth to discuss with folks at odc-disc...@lists.okfn.org as well. I'll forward your post there for people to be aware of your list. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Hi, On 08/08/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote: On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelsonnel...@crynwr.com wrote: copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the people who think a reciprocal license solves a problem. Pushing things in a PD direction will cause just as many problems, there is no way you can have a one size fits all and then try to shoe horn everyone into that box: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog I'm somewhat tired of people using existing imports as the reason for *anything* in OSM. Can we please just delete all data that has been imported? Imports are just data, and we should not base any decision we make on some idea of copyright that someone else might have. Imports are bad enough in the effect they have on the surveying community. If imports now, in addition, start to become a corset that limits our choices with regards to where the project should be going, then it is *high time* to get rid of them completely. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Liz, On 08/08/2010 10:21 AM, Liz wrote: You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian coastline. I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. Honestly, I will. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 8 August 2010 18:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. I'm starting to think 80n was right, if you were really serious about wanting a PD fork you would fork it rather than trying to force everyone else to do what you want, when it's clear just as many want SA... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as the imported one. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
On 8 August 2010 18:43, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as the imported one. People have also been fixing the coastline up from Nearmap. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL / BY-SA
Why we need a SA for all merged Data? I understand ODbL like this: If you Merge some Data with OSM Data and create something (e.g. a map) from that you have to publish the merged data under ODbL(or compatible). so why we need that? With SA we intend that no one can fork OSM under a restrictive Licence, and every product with OSM-Data in it should pronounce osm inside isn't it? (did I forget something?) but mostly a fork isn't the intention of merging. Mostly you will delete the merged data after making the intended product!? so you can't merge OSM (e.g. for routing) with other restricted Data. maybe we should think back to what we really intend with a Licence. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] The use of OSM images in a promotional video
Hi all - I'm doing an animation for a promotional corporate video, including an animated 3D model of Sydney, which I'd like to overlay with the OSM map of Sydney. Presumably this is ok as long as I include the appropriate accreditation in the credits - could someone please clarify for me? The video would be out in the wild (youtube etc.) and would be used as a promotional tool for our company (Seeker Wireless). We provide mobile phone location technology, I'd be illustrating the geographic location of people using Seeker Wireless products. Thanks -Elliot ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
