On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
> > their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
> > should not be required to agree to
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
> their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
> should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some
> new users will be shune
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:30:20PM -0500, Richard Weait wrote:
> who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the
> contributor terms? Is this an improvement? What aspects address your
> concerns regarding previous versions? What aspects could be further
> improved and how?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases
> (including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section
> 4.4)
I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible
licence impr
Oops.
Sorry about that. :-(
- rob
"Mike Linksvayer" wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>
>>>
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
rights that the CC licence grants you over
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>
>>
>>> They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
>>> rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
>>>
>>
>> When I'm given a set of tiles under a C
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the
> better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.
>
> If, however, you intend to "protect" our data by putting it under a
> share-alike data, then any ad
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
>> the text) "you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
>> Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
>> the ODbL does not
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>>
>> So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
>> doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
>>
>
> And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open i
On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open in front of me, I
can't find any mention of the words "map", "carto
Hi,
On 11/19/10 15:38, Ed Avis wrote:
That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new
licences
and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee
beyond
doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay.
For me, as a PD
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) "you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does not *say* you can do so.
It contains, in combination with the DbCL,
Frederik Ramm writes:
>>If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
>>produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
>>extract of data.
>
>You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
>that way and see if OSMF sue me.
Sure - bu
Anthony,
On 11/19/10 14:38, Anthony wrote:
If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.
You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
that way and see if OSMF sue
On 11/19/2010 11:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
Anthony writes:
On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.
Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
disagree with.)
At length. ;-)
- Rob.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Frederik Ramm 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".
>>
>>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.
>
> As I un
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Frederik Ramm 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".
>>
>>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.
>
> As I un
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
So a license from, say, MapQuest,
granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
MapQuest's copyright,
>
>>>...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
>>>map tiles
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't
> covered by BY-SA.
Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL?
___
legal-talk mailing list
leg
Frederik Ramm 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".
>
>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.
As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents
Anthony writes:
>>>So a license from, say, MapQuest,
>>>granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
>>>MapQuest's copyright,
>>...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
>>map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data,
>Well, depends on what
On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that
the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the
database rights in some versions), I thi
22 matches
Mail list logo
