Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
Have we reached a
consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected
by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright?
yes. see the contributor terms document.
I think what might have been meant is not 'does the OSM
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
On 30/09/2009, at 7:36 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a
consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not
protected
by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any
Frederik Ramm wrote:
For example if OSM user n80 artfully crafts a way that doesn't
even exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps
be protected by copyright in some jurisdictions, completely
independent of the database and whether or not it is substantial.
I think we need
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Matt Amos wrote:
And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that
I've mad a further FOI request to the OS today seeking clarification with
respect to those OS maps that do not carry a Crown Copyright (c) date. This
is the case with a lot of the First edition 1:25,000 sheets which have a
published date and a separate corrections/changes/additions date. I'm very
On 30 Sep 2009, at 04:50, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
I've mad a further FOI request to the OS today seeking clarification
with
respect to those OS maps that do not carry a Crown Copyright (c)
date. This
is the case with a lot of the First edition 1:25,000 sheets which
