Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-11-02 23:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com: We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for Actually the Italian Government has designed their open data license (IODL) to be compatible with OdbL: http://www.dati.gov.it/content/italian-open-data-license-domande-e-risposte (I've heard they did this explicitly because of OSM). If it makes sense for a PA to use a share-alike license instead of PD is a different kettle of fish... cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a licensing issue. If we add up the cost of all the time company representatives have spent trying to get OSM to change its licensing *a second time*, it would have been a lot cheaper for them to get together and just hire a lawyer who knew what they were doing. 1. I wish this was true. 2. I wish you described the problem. There's a brake on adoption we put on OpenStreetMap by way of share alike for no tangible benefit. This is not just about shaping the OSM license to taste for certain 'company representatives' but about the overall growth potential of the project which is limited by its applications. All we have in favor of share alike is fear, and the fact that we've used it so far. We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for, but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the project because of share alike. I've stated this argument before and I do understand that for many in the community share alike represents an important protection for the project. I don't follow this sentiment at all because of all the reasons Florian laid out in his response [1]. But I do understand the desire for a strong, lasting and independent OpenStreetMap. Maybe there's a way to think outside of the box of a license and come up with guarantees or principles the OpenStreetMap project would want to have to protect its interests. Thinking out loud. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-October/008025.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/11/14 02:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote: We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for, Then clearly OMS should have stuck with BY-SA for the database, as that did gain third party data releases. but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the project because of share alike. If switching to a license that is more amenable to proprietary use hasn't stopped increasing numbers of people walking away then, again, the project should have stuck with BY-SA. So the stronger share-alike license got more of the positive results that you are blaming the weaker license for not achieving, and caused less of the alleged harm you are attributing to it. That sounds like an argument for stronger copyleft, not weaker. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUVtFBAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ3SoIAJ0NApsIcSEMUSiqnhvnY3fF u3vY3n5MU5gNrJV9WxSwLObyV2imyMPfbZhlF2OPQCXp8D4uN6Mot+9/cD7F7nan pjb0YIeHC0oruQrShoRTXFaHVCHBK7N4zOfhT+aI+gbavToYcGgcU4y38kM+DLml M7HA246sFny7NjckGJqmyDoOp/U0Nhw3YHFII1ZfG7j1yohYSrVE40WE2/D0oPs/ pExMVktZija/rG9moXwyQyd/vdAMizcFlbpfPEAWDyYDpKOn0+l+WWK6Oiw2626r ekKYAq+YDNf8lWl3o5SzmJS0uLLlzG/mSOK1+OUL7oq69t4HpGCQ471PvMHorRc= =NhmN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
Hi, On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:02:27PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. Share Alike is the expression for fear of abuse. In my mind there cant be any abuse of OSM data. I want the OSM Data to be available everywhere and anyone. And it needs to be a no brainer which it isnt right now. For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a licensing issue. ANY restriction is a problem for adoption as one can see e.g. from the discussion about geocoding data. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database Contents Licence (DbCL) [2]. It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper at [3], which said that uncertainty over the content licence was a problem for downstream users. When I went to check what the content licence was, I was unable to find any definitive information where I would expect to find it; i.e. at http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ or http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License . The latter two seem to suggest that the OSM Contributor Terms [4] act as a content licence, but I don't see how that's possible, since the Contributor Terms are concerned with people giving rights and assurances to OSMF, rather than OSMF providing rights to data users. The Contributor Terms themselves mention the DbCL as one of the possible licences OSMF can use, but don't actually say that OSMF are using it for current data downloads. So can I enquire as to exactly what the content licence is for OSM's geodata, and suggest that it is made clearer on the pages linked above? I guess some people may argue that the individual data items in OSM are facts and so aren't copyrightable anyway. However, it's not obvious to me that this is necessarily the case for all the data items (there are certainly some things in OSM that are subject to creative judgement) and it would seem that uncertainty over the content licence is a real issue for data users. Even if an explicit content licence may not be necessary, it would surely be good to soecify one like the DbCL anyway. Thanks, Robert. [1] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1-0/ [3] http://spatiallaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-odbl-and-openstreetmap-analysis-and.html [4] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of OpenStreetMap data. Does it really deserve any more attention than that? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active in other geospatial associations... so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at first glance looks like an expert for this topic... cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
I am unpaid nobody in the context of last two emails on this thread. In my opinion, it sure would be nice for users (not contributors alone) if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, from my point of view, that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible. Thank you for giving me a voice. On Oct 29, 2014 7:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active in other geospatial associations... so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at first glance looks like an expert for this topic... cheers, Martin ___ 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] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-10-29 13:47 GMT+01:00 Sachin Dole sd...@genvega.com: ... if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, ..., that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible. actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. It's congenital, not viral. It propagates by inheritance, not contagion. ;-) - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUPtbAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ91cH/1jbALOpOXN2kjNmTI1WkpuO nk4HYxHMkuuGhJTjQ9FYFAAhDMw89DJ7AUMCP6AdjPCxQzlysgiOCyE5I/398MJi qo3QWDlaWoV7MMiUzZuICwzbH3+LJAqFx886LLr/GSaH0pLkI0FsS0jZ1oMg+yaC g7vu44F0KG4EPXZlfeJNp5ameCQTl4FqTBH6aB8ru35+Tu4w2TMbbbFDS/+XQg1A Wc7uhOzUUA8ktTqZFPdH9dlbHE5Y9an9y140K+MoBXYvId9UEaLhV6PeOA/kYOA7 luYbUePtjX9EALbqtipslaAXVGQdfmtaJd159AHKEdRGX8wX4tOWCWSmxl6C2V4= =ejQk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of OpenStreetMap data. Does it really deserve any more attention than that? Uncertainty is simply a term of art that means obvious impediments to my sense of entitlement. Likewise, lack of clarity means haven't read the contributor terms. - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUP19AAoJECciMUAZd2dZJXMIAJLhG+9jU8qf82oxH2b3T5XU jgCGd7ZovjUZmANZTZ9yjhjm4Um5Ch4iv6rAG2SftF4wEadzV4fVVbY4dE/QbEUr 8Z7hNW48Qs888ifXR7jrekbtKFox1jTKAWmQcZAUW9zMsKPzyVPk/dLTd1gBg+d0 vVNSAmdexOUZAbCksrHUTp4fdJhm8l+qwPlb43hVm4bLxp3WpIv32Mlb7PoWPgt8 /LIn+roW1R7ryFjcTaSZEseKNIX3rpo78p6UxbBFyRTdrufI7+YT4Zbf/M2tk+UX ePwEcjuTpWhoNOKA7Gng51T2zTBhfDY+Fw6EhzfowbDZ9162yod8vg98/qv61XE= =nOHH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes: The ODbL definition of database implicitly contains a definition of contents, namely the things that are arranged in a systematic etc way. What the contents are will depend on the terms of OSMF's licence, I think the 'contents' must depend on the nature of the work being considered and not on the licence. For some works, such as a database of photographs, it is clear what is the 'contents' and what the database which contains them. I don't think that distinction is clear for the OSM map data, because the individual data items (such as latitude numbers, or names of things) are almost meaningless considered separately. So my question is really about how the law and the licence text apply to OSM in particular. The ODbL is a general-purpose licence for anything that may be considered a 'database' having 'contents'; the question is whether a given work can be considered in that framework. For a photo album, the answer is yes; for an individual photo, surely not (it would be stretching things to consider each square pixel as a separate item of 'contents'). The OSM map falls somewhere between these two extremes. The example you gave was that of the user diaries table, which contains prose written by OSM contributors. It would certainly be a good example of a split between database and contents. However, it's not in fact part of the map data which is proposed to be distributed under ODbL / DbCL. So, in the UK an entire table (and certainly the entire database), considered as a table, would attract database right and one or two forms of copyright (probably only the one, maybe none), but some of the data in the database might attract its own copyright. That copyright would not be licensed under ODbL which expressly does not deal with the licence terms of the contents of the database. This does make sense, but it makes it important to find out exactly what these 'contents' are. The ODbL text is no help because it is general-purpose and doesn't know about map-specific terms or OSM-specific data such as nodes and areas. Problem: what if I take a map and enter points on it into the OSM database? [...] However the map is not (as a map) contents of the database (in ODbL terms) because it is not individually accessible. Ah, so perhaps this is the test; if an object can be taken out individually then it is considered 'contents'. However, this is problematic; given the file of map data, whether something is individually accessible depends entirely on the computer program used to manipulate the file. At the extreme a whole city might be individually accessible through some interface. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes: But it's possible that the 'contents', which are covered by the DbCL rather than the ODbL, might be something meaningful. Yes, indeed. And who knows? If I understand you rightly, you're saying that the 'contents' referred to here is not meant to be something meaningful in the context of OSM, but rather a catch-all term for whatever a court might find to be 'database contents' in the future. That seems a little bit dangerous since you can reasonably argue that almost everything in OSM is 'database contents', with the 'database' itself providing very little. (Yes, even if you remember the difference between a database and a database management system.) Once you start saying that the map can be divided into 'database' and 'contents', you naturally invite the question of where the dividing line is. It might have been better not to muddy the waters in this way and just say that the whole thing - whether considered by law as database, as database contents, or anything else - is licensed under the ODbL. Otherwise (and I realize this is a far-fetched scenario, but no more outlandish than some of the others thrown about here) we run the risk of someone taking the whole OSM map data but then arguing in court that what they took is 'database contents' and therefore they are entitled to use it under the DbCL. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
2011/5/8 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: If I understand you rightly, you're saying that the 'contents' referred to here is not meant to be something meaningful in the context of OSM, but rather a catch-all term for whatever a court might find to be 'database contents' in the future. H, maybe a little more explanation would help. The ODbL takes a number of inputs defined by the licensor. One of them is a specification of what the database being licensed under the ODbL. There is a constraint on that input, namely that it must be a database as defined in the ODbL: “Database” – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License. (or the licensing would be meaningless or at best confusing). This definition is close to the definition in Article 1 of the database directive which is: 'database` shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. A court is almost certain to conclude that they are meant to mean the same thing even though the wording is different. The ODbL definition of database implicitly contains a definition of contents, namely the things that are arranged in a systematic etc way. What the contents are will depend on the terms of OSMF's licence, but I suspect that the definition of database will be in computer science terms the OSM database described here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Database_schema I'm not an OSM expert, so I've never read this before, but fortunately its in a language (SQL) that I understand. If that is the database then the contents (in ODbL terms) is almost certainly the material contained in the rows (or individual fields) of the database, since they can be individually accessed. Some of this material is almost certainly not going to attract copyright protection in any jurisdiction _even_ in the UK (which I think is the slackest jurisdiction in the developed world in terms of subsistence). Others clearly will, for example: CREATE TABLE diary_entries ( id bigint NOT NULL, --autoincrement primary key user_id bigint NOT NULL, -- references users(id) title character varying(255) NOT NULL, body text NOT NULL, created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL, updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL, latitude double precision, longitude double precision, language_code character varying(255) DEFAULT 'en'::character varying NOT NULL -- references languages(code) ); contains a field body of type text which could contain (and probably does contain in some cases) a literary work. So, in the UK an entire table (and certainly the entire database), considered as a table, would attract database right and one or two forms of copyright (probably only the one, maybe none), but some of the data in the database might attract its own copyright. That copyright would not be licensed under ODbL which expressly does not deal with the licence terms of the contents of the database. So, if you want to licence people to be able to use the individual bits of the database that themselves attract copyright protection (of which there won't be many) then you need some other licensing scheme for them. Problem: what if I take a map and enter points on it into the OSM database? Assume that that map-maker is happy with that and that it is an OK thing to do. That map is a graphical/artistic work which will almost certainly have its own copyright. One might loosely say that the OSM database will contain that map after I have entered it - and certainly there's an argument that OSMF would need to licence it (and have the right to do so) when it displayed that part of the map. However the map is not (as a map) contents of the database (in ODbL terms) because it is not individually accessible. Its unclear to me whether ODbL does, or is intended, to licence that map's copyright as part of the database somehow or not. ODbL 2.2 says Copyright. Any copyright or neighbouring rights in the Database. which suggests only those rights that subsist in the database _qua database_ and not any rights that might exist otherwise. On the other hand it seems natural that the map be Your Contents as understood by the contributor terms, because it is very much something contributed by the contributor who enters it. My understanding is that geodata legal specialists have thought about all this, but I'm not clear what conclusions they have come to. That seems a little bit dangerous since you can reasonably argue that almost everything in OSM is 'database contents', with the 'database' itself providing very little. (Yes, even if you remember the difference between a database and a database management system.) Once you start saying that the map can be divided into 'database' and 'contents', you naturally
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
On 5 May 2011 15:40, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: From a user's point of view, a safe strategy is to assume that 'contents' is empty and that everything in the map is licensed under ODbL. But it's possible that the 'contents', which are covered by the DbCL rather than the ODbL, might be something meaningful. Yes, indeed. And who knows? Even our Court of Appeal (of England and Wales) is not entirely sure, which is why it referred questions to the ECJ about what (if any) intellectual property rights there were in football fixtures lists. An (English) court might well find that parts of or all of the map were some or many artistic works and hence subject to copyright or it might think that some of the words in the map were literary works (unlikely, but I don't know what's there - its a big map), or that (perhaps) each way was a compilation along the lines of the old compilation cases or some similar form of literary work and therefore subject to copyright. Or the ways themselves might be databases subject to database copyright or they might be another kind of work (assuming that Infopaq has destroyed the division of copyright into kinds of work that English law adopts) etc. Really, who knows. I'd certainly happily take instructions to argue either way on all these points, as I'm sure lots of other IP lawyers would. But whatever might be that position, it looks likely that there is also a database (subject to database right) of the bits that make up the map, whether or not there are any other IP rights. Other jurisdictions may (of course) vary, though Europe less so. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
The plan to change the licence is to use ODbL for the 'database' and DbCL for the 'database contents'. Are these 'contents' the same as the 'Your Contents' referred to by the CTs - or is that a different kind of contents? Don't the CTs also need to assign rights over 'Your Database' as well as 'Your Contents', since it is likely that even one single contributor would produce effectively a database of map data, just covering a smaller area of the globe? Or is an individual changeset considered to be pure 'contents' and only when it is combined with other changesets becomes part of a 'database'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
On 27 April 2011 09:26, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: The plan to change the licence is to use ODbL for the 'database' and DbCL for the 'database contents'. Are these 'contents' the same as the 'Your Contents' referred to by the CTs - or is that a different kind of contents? They are defined in the CTs as data and/or any other content (contributed by the contributor). As an aside, what any other content might be is not clear since, surely, anything capable of being uploaded to the site is in some definitions of the word data. However that's a standard lawyerly drafting style to try to exclude any possibilities that haven't been thought of (its a style that is discouraged by clear English campaigners but its pretty common). Put more simply Your Contents is anything you upload. contents in the ODbL has a very different sense. The database right refers to a database in the sense of directive 96/9/EC where database is defined as a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. So from the point of view of EU database law a database consists of something else (works, data etc) which are arranged into the database. The ODbL shadows this definition by saying: “Contents” – The contents of this Database, which includes the information, independent works, or other material collected into the Database. A court is likely to assume this is intended to parallel the definition given in 96/9/EC, so that contents refer to the things arranged to form the database. Those things may be subject to other forms of intellectual property right, including database rights of their own which might even be licensed under the ODbL (for example a database of works, some of which are tables). Hopefully this makes it clear that something isn't either contents or database but could be both or neither. So, contributors may upload data which does not, itself, constitute a copyrightable work and which is not itself a database and therefore the contributors have no intellectual property rights in the data. Alternatively, contributors may upload data which, taken together, does constitute either a copyrightable work and/or a database. Don't the CTs also need to assign rights over 'Your Database' as well as 'Your Contents', since it is likely that even one single contributor would produce effectively a database of map data, just covering a smaller area of the globe? No. The licence grant in clause 2 licences both copyright and database rights to OSMF. A contributor therefore permits any act which might infringe any database right they might have in the data they upload. The wording of the grant makes it clear that the use of the word contents is not meant to equate to that in the ODbL. Or is an individual changeset considered to be pure 'contents' and only when it is combined with other changesets becomes part of a 'database'? As I hope I've clarified, I don't think it makes sense to ask whether something is considered to be pure 'contents'. The two questions are: (i) what is covered by the contributor terms (everything uploaded) and (ii) what does the ODbL licence (the arrangement of OSMF's database)? -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes: Put more simply Your Contents is anything you upload. contents in the ODbL has a very different sense. Thanks for clarifying. I think it's unfortunate that the same word was used for both. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
