Hi,
On 01/05/11 09:01, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Is there a tool available to remove all my contributed data from osm,
safeguard it, and allows me to resubmit once I can agree
with the CT and new license ?
No. You would probably negatively affect a lot of other
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will
not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to
the CT.
Can you clarify this? I understood that the CTs were per-person, not
per-account, so if you are unable to
On 5 January 2011 12:09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will
not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to
the CT.
Can you clarify this? I understood that the
On 5 January 2011 22:15, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Repeated again... per account. The 1.0 version of the CT terms are not
clear, but the intent is per account.
And here I was thinking that contracts are about what's in them... No
matter how much you'd wish and hope they'd
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:09:41 + (UTC), Ed Avis wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you
will
not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed
to
the CT.
Can you clarify this? I understood that the
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why
are we not using it now?
I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we
still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their
data
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
I understood that the CTs were per-person, not
per-account, so if you are unable to agree to them for existing contributions
you would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have
to agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions
On 5 January 2011 22:21, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate accounts
together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail address.
Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept or not
accept
On 5 January 2011 04:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 04:37, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to
delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.
I still don't understand how data
On 5 January 2011 22:28, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Our mapping is (likely) illegal in North Korea and a few other
You have mentioned China, because mapping there is illegal without the
proper permits or whatever you need.
regions. I bet we would not remove the data even
John Smith wrote:
I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis
in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such
data would be removed, not may be removed
As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write
we will not do
Ed Avis wrote:
I think that actions speak louder than words
svn is that way
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891828.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at
On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write
we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms, whether the
illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why
are we not using it now?
I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we
still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their
data
Right!
Frederic said as a reply:
No. You would probably negatively affect a lot of other contributions by
removing your data. This might be considered vandalism. If you were to
remove your data now, others would probably undo the removal.
These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new
On 05/01/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT
(as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn.
Why?
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing
Maarten Deen md...@... writes:
CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate
accounts together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail
address.
Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept
or not accept the CT for his
On 2011-01-05 14:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT
(as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn.
Just out of curiosity: What do you consider as your data?
Bye, Andreas
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 02:14 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will
not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to
the CT.
No edit with my account leads to that I demand my previous data
John Smith wrote:
On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly
write
we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms
[...]
What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Free data needs no license or CT.
I agree! I'm really glad you - like me and many others - are dedicating your
data to the public domain. No licence, no CT.
Once OSM continues under new license and CT
(as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn.
Oh,
You have a point. ;
But I wrote just my intention, not my decision.
But I can still remove whatever data I consider mine.
(well, until april 1st)
Gert Gremmen
-
Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest)
Before printing, think about the
On 5 January 2011 23:53, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England Wales; and the
CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be
governed by English law.
I was under the impression that only the US had
On 6 January 2011 00:29, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a
reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying
music.
... being sued
John Smith wrote:
I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
infringement as a criminal offence...
It's an offence in EW whether personal or commercial. For a business, it's
an offence to distribute copyrighted material without licence; for an
individual, it's an
On 4 January 2011 23:33, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have
to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.
However, is there any guarantee that OSMF will remove such data
first?
To answer Robert's question. In my view clause 2 needs - and I hope
that it will include in its final version - a limitation that you only
grant a licence in respect of any rights that you have.
The aim (I believe) is this:
* the contributor licenses very broadly OSMF to permit them to use any
On 5 January 2011 13:24, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined,
why
are we not using it now?
I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we still
I am wondering if anyone have considered the laws of some countries, at
least Sweden, that states that maps and other forms of landscape
information should be reviewed before published. This of defense
considerations. Probably there is some limitation of the jurisdiction
that makes Swedish laws
I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like to run it
by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap and similar
situations.
Here is the CT version that we are looking at formally releasing:
Mike,
I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like
to run it by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap
and similar situations.
The major change in all this, compared to the earlier versions, is the
concept that you may now contribute data that is not
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Could someone, of that disposition, let's call him A, not simply do the
following: Make a contract with person B that says Dear B, you may use
my data but only under ODBL 1.0 and nothing else; then instruct B to
upload the stuff to OSM. Now the data is in
On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of
relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless.
This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is
owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I
33 matches
Mail list logo
