Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Rob Myers r...@... writes: It also seems a bit like unnecessary licence proliferation. That's only because it is. They really should have used an ODC licence IMO. If they had chosen a licence from Open Data Commons, apart from the public domain dedication, wouldn't it be incompatible with the proposed CTs? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
On 10/07/2010 10:04 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myersr...@... writes: It also seems a bit like unnecessary licence proliferation. That's only because it is. They really should have used an ODC licence IMO. If they had chosen a licence from Open Data Commons, apart from the public domain dedication, wouldn't it be incompatible with the proposed CTs? The DbCL might be, but I had ODC-BY in mind and I think that you're right that it wouldn't be compatible. I'm coming to the conclusion that individual contributor of original data to OSM and institutional importer of a third party database should be treated differently, and possibly that OSM should do the Debian thing of having different repositories for different classes of resource. The end result can still be BY-SA map tiles... - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
On 7 October 2010 10:43, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 10/07/2010 10:04 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myersr...@... writes: I'm coming to the conclusion that individual contributor of original data to OSM and institutional importer of a third party database should be treated differently, and possibly that OSM should do the Debian thing of having different repositories for different classes of resource. The end result can still be BY-SA map tiles... Couldn't the same thing be achieved by having the license at the object level instead so I could mark my own surveyed data as PD while externally sourced objects (eg. OS data) would have the appropriate license attached? Data users could then make the decision on what data to pull out based on the license they want to apply to their product. This would also allow the project to use non-commercial sources and the like just marking the objects with the appropriate licenses. I guess this is also 80n's point re. different licenses coexisting in the same project. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Markus_g marku...@... writes: What was the original vote deciding? The vote, of OSMF members only, was on 'I approve the process' or 'I do not approve the process'. (Those were the two choices in the vote.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Thank you. Regards, Markus_g -Original Message- From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ed Avis Sent: Saturday, 2 October 2010 2:58 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license Markus_g marku...@... writes: What was the original vote deciding? The vote, of OSMF members only, was on 'I approve the process' or 'I do not approve the process'. (Those were the two choices in the vote.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Surely we can all agree to differ about whether data imports are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The legal-talk mailing list is not really the place for such a discussion. Most people will say 'it depends on the particular data being added' and we could perhaps leave it at that. What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. We as a community choose what kind of map we want to create, and then need to choose a licence to support that choice. At the moment the tail seems to be wagging the dog. Some people want to import data, some don't. Both groups need to be supported. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Well said. - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed Sep 29 10:01:33 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license Surely we can all agree to differ about whether data imports are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The legal-talk mailing list is not really the place for such a discussion. Most people will say 'it depends on the particular data being added' and we could perhaps leave it at that. What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. We as a community choose what kind of map we want to create, and then need to choose a licence to support that choice. At the moment the tail seems to be wagging the dog. Some people want to import data, some don't. Both groups need to be supported. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX. We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification. Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009. Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information. This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email. Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Hi, Kevin Cordina wrote: What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping. And vice versa. I want to import dataset and that's why we cannot use license is tail-wagging-dog as well. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: Ordnance Survey's OpenData license specifically allows sub-licensing, restricted by the need for attribution. There isn't a conflict with the 'free and open licence' when section 4 (attribution) is taken into account. I don't think this is quite enough: although OSMF agrees to attribute you or the copyright holder, what matters isn't what OSMF does, but what everyone does. It appears that you grant the OSMF the right to distribute under any licence which can be classed as 'free and open', which wouldn't include an attribution requirement. I don't believe that we have the ability to grant that right to the OSMF for the Ordnance Survey data. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
