On 11/18/2010 10:09 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
But if what is meant is that you grant an unlimited licence as far as your
own rights are concerned - but you don't make any representation about other
rights that might apply to your contribution - then this must be made clear.
That sounds like a good
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
I misunderstood your objection. My understanding of the current policy
is that a contributor does permit OSMF to use a different (future)
licence. That is the reason for the perpetual licence.
OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all
On 18 November 2010 10:14, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused
ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too.
So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to
choose
(pretty
Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes:
If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the
resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Consider this case: someone wants to use OpenStreetMap data augmented with POIs
from a closed source in a routing
On 18 November 2010 10:19, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
That's what you say, and I hope it is true. But others claim different
things;
some say that even once the work such as a printed map has been produced and
distributed under CC-BY-SA or even CC0 terms, it is still tainted somehow,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Martijn van Exel wrote:
If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute
the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Consider this case: someone wants to use
On 18 November 2010 10:34, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, where the content is from some third party and is currently
compatible with ODbL but may not be compatible with some future license, it
would be essential that detailed and accurate records of such contributions
are
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
this is in my view one of the big problems with
the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about
what it permits you get four answers.
One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as
there wouldn't be further down
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
So, in that case, if you must give sufficient permission to allow OSMF to
choose (pretty much) any licence it wants in future, it would not be possible
to add third-party data
No. That's not the case and on this point the draft licence *is* clear
enough in my
80n wrote:
You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply avoiding
it by not publishing the combined work.
The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print
(something) in a book or journal so as to make it generally known: we pay
$10 for every letter we
On 18 November 2010 10:59, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
That all makes sense but even in the revised 1.2 draft it is not implied by
the language. The CTs ask you to grant an unlimited licence over the
Contents,
without any exemption from this requirement if some rights in the Contents
- Original Message -
From: Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
On 17 November 2010 13:30, David Groom
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply
avoiding
it by not publishing the combined work.
The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print
(something) in
On 11/18/2010 10:25 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
Whatever program you use with OSM, the data will
inevitably be mixed and interacted with data from other sources, even if that
other data is just the program text
I think that loaded data is not generally regard as being combined
with the program code
On 11/18/2010 10:19 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
Rob Myersr...@... writes:
Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under
some interpretations. It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
80n wrote:
I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It
looks perfectly fine to me.
Depends what you mean by problem.
If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically as in the
geowiki.com example, and delivering it via a Flash applet) and Scenario B
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an
attribution requirement is more reasonable.)
If someone tries to
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
(*) But is this really the policy wanted? So an individual contributor has
no
choice - they have to grant an unlimited licence and suck up any future
licence
changes. But a third party can veto licence changes - or insist
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It
looks perfectly fine to me.
Depends what you mean by problem.
If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically as in
80n wrote:
There's a disconnect in your argument.
No, there isn't, because:
Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal
judgement are not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant.
The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That
end
Hi,
On 11/18/10 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(I believe that the reasonably calculated in 4.3 imposes a downstream
requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that
attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you
have not reasonably calculated
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your
friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back
together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not
Anthony o...@... writes:
One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
To the extent that you are allowed to offer a license on a Produced
Work, that license only applies to *your contribution* to the Produced
Work.
On 11/18/2010 05:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Rob Myersr...@... writes:
We can produce a CC licenced set of map tiles from ODbL data. But we
cannot use those to make a Lady Gaga score or the original ODbL
database.
Actually, you can use them to produce a Lady Gaga score, if you somehow
managed to
On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project - rendering
data into map tiles
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an
entirely separate issue.
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data
but you do get a licence to all copyright interest
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say
different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
However, this part remains: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You
hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
The point is this. The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence
in the work.
Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot.
Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you
received (in this case a printed map, say).
Anthony o...@... writes:
Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The
Work is derived from Your Contents and Their Contents. Would a
definition of Your Contents help clarify that?
Yes, it would - although I think that the approach I proposed of
'section A - rights you
Anthony o...@... writes:
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received
As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor
terms, you aren't allowed to grant a
Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion
of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally
recreated in this scenario?
I don't think it will be possible to accidentally reverse engineer the
DB, and if you intentionally reverse engineer it,
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
produced map tiles, so they
Martin,
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
But a map is (this might have to be looked at for the individual case)
not only a work but can constitute a database at the same time. If you
are able to reconstruct a database with substantial parts of the
original database by re-engineering if from the map,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Other People hold rights in Their Contents, not in Your Contents. The
At least in the case of Nearmap, they hold rights in Your Contents too:
You will own all Derived Works that you create. However, you may only
distribute Derived
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received
As you have correctly pointed out
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You,
as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work
So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your
38 matches
Mail list logo
