Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems

2009-03-01 Thread Dair Grant
Frederik Ramm wrote: > I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I > perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree? Not at all; I am still reading through the draft, and have exactly the same concern. It may be I have misunderstood how this is intended to apply, but I

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting

2009-01-24 Thread Dair Grant
Peter Miller wrote: > Is there not a large potential conflict of interest between SteveC in relation > to his driving this change within the Foundation and also being a director of > a company that could well benefit from the OSM project not offering a full set > of services? I don't know, but I c

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

2008-10-10 Thread Dair Grant
Simon Ward wrote: > I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their > source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. ... > The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere > translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived > da

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime

2008-02-07 Thread Dair Grant
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: >We need a situation where someone can say "Yes" when an enquiry >comes in, not "hire a lawyer to look at license XYZ". Otherwise the >data is useless for many purposes that everyone would agree it >should be allowed for. Unless you go for an unrestricted model like PD

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime

2008-02-04 Thread Dair Grant
Richard Fairhurst wrote: >Third case: there's an explicit clause (4.6) that a derivative >database protected by technological measures (such as one sealed in >a satnav) must also be made available in unrestricted form. This clause requires that the unrestricted copy be "at least as accessible to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going

2008-01-08 Thread Dair Grant
Rob Myers wrote: >>As the front page of the wiki says, "most maps...actually have >>legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people >>from using them in creative, productive or unexpected ways". > >A copyleft licence prevents such restrictions from being imposed. > >A PD dedicati

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The "major contributions" argument

2008-01-08 Thread Dair Grant
Jochen Topf wrote: >One argument for keeping CC or go with another license that requires >attribution is that some of the (major?) contributions we have seem >to require that. And to turn that argument around, once the TIGER import is complete what %ge of OSM data will actually be derived from a