Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
Paul Norman wrote: Is there any relevant case law on substantial? A brief reminder that there are two useful wiki pages: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Case_law which collect links to useful papers and cases. In particular Charlotte Waelde's paper contains a long discussion of what might be considered substantial in a geo context post-BHB: http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Guideline-review-Substantial-tp5804512p5804651.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
+1 I know of a few sites who have not responded to my email. what is the next step? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/04/2014 00:34, Simon Poole wrote: Just a reminder, this thread started of with a discussion of attribution, or rather lack of such. I don't think there is very much doubt about what the licence requires even given all the complexity of the ODbL, for a produced work it is: However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Our suggested attribution text is already very minimal. It is not clear to me what reasonable objections exist against simply attributing OSM as we require. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On 28.04.2014 23:34, Kai Krueger wrote: I would say we can all agree on that for the majority of the community giving data back when you fix things is the spirit of the share-a-like license of OSM. Even as a supporter of more liberal licensing, this is a spirit I could pretty much get behind. But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it. Tobias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
Just a reminder, this thread started of with a discussion of attribution, or rather lack of such Doesn't help that the original post conflates the issues :p On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Just a reminder, this thread started of with a discussion of attribution, or rather lack of such. I don't think there is very much doubt about what the licence requires even given all the complexity of the ODbL, for a produced work it is: However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Our suggested attribution text is already very minimal. It is not clear to me what reasonable objections exist against simply attributing OSM as we require. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it. The users of the data may want it. The license exists to benefit them, not (just) OSM. If the actual effects worked against this then yes there would be a problem. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attributing OpenStreetMap at Mapbox
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I just posted a writeup on my diary on how we're attributing OpenStreetMap at Mapbox. [ ... ] [ and from the blog ] (c) Mapbox (c) OpenStreetMap links to https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps with a full listing of all sources. [ ... ] Looking forward to feedback. I feel that the attribution that you currently use provides insufficient recognition for OpenStreetMap. A rough equivalent would be to refer to your company or one of your products, but then link to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Commercial_OSM_Software_and_Services Your choice of attribution is probably okay based on a strict reading of the current guidance in the wiki. I feel that we should change that guidance and require a more prominent, and individualized attribution for OpenStreetMap. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On 30.04.2014 19:37, Rob Myers wrote: On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it. The users of the data may want it. The license exists to benefit them, not (just) OSM. If the actual effects worked against this then yes there would be a problem. I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood, never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the creation of a produced work. But your argument about also shows that there are mappers who ask for a lot more than just giving data back when you fix things. Thus it would be foolish for a data consumer to assume they only have to follow that spirit, as much as I wish that was enough. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On 30/04/14 02:35 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood, never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the creation of a produced work. It's been of use to at least one person. The person who created the produced work. But if the license can encourage more cost effective and environmentally friendly computation that's an unexpected benefit. ;-) But your argument about also shows that there are mappers who ask for a lot more than just giving data back when you fix things. It shows that the intent of the license is for *all* users of the data to be free to use it however they encounter it. If that requires more than bug fixes then so be it. The license doesn't exist to protect corporations from having to pay for proprietary data (or to drum up contributions for OSM), it exists to protect the freedom of every user of the data. Thus it would be foolish for a data consumer to assume they only have to follow that spirit, as much as I wish that was enough. If the data isn't used to produce the work, it doesn't have to be provided. Trying to work around this isn't foolish, it's malicious. Where there is legitimate uncertainty it should be cleared up if possible. But always to favour *all* users of the data. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
