Hi,
On 01/04/11 16:02, Anthony wrote:
But what could we do?
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.
No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must
have the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they
should not par
Steve,
On 12/23/10 01:57, Steve Bennett wrote:
That's another area wide open to discussion; my interpretation of "I
consider my contributions PD" has always been: "I don't claim any rights in
what I contribute." - not: "I vouch for nobody holding any rights in what I
contribute." (The latter pos
my trace would be under a Microsoft
licence which permits me to only upload it to OSM, and after that is done,
it is then available under CC-BY-SA to all?
I guess so - more precisely, "available under whatever license OSM uses
at that time".
Bye
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops
publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under
CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to
Phillip,
On 12/21/10 16:43, Barnett, Phillip wrote:
So people who have not (yet) accepted the CTs can't use Bing? Is that really
the case?
I think Rob was slightly wrong when he said:
We do not have permission from Bing to licence the data differently
anywhere else. And contributions to OSM
Hi,
On 12/21/10 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote:
I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis
that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled
with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing
imagery cannot be distributed under this licens
on left the ground a while ago, no, meanwhile someone has cut
the tether as well.
By all means, if that's what floats your boat, continue - but you'll
excuse if meanwhile I'm a little bit pragmatic and trace some aerial
imagery. I'm sure it is wrong somehow, but I like th
caution need not stretch so far as to respond
with "You say we can use your data? I don't believe you."
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ermission - and I cannot remember you being equally over-cautious about
Yahoo. Why?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
Dear LWG,
Oops, mis-sent this - was supposed to go to LWG only and not to list.
Anyway, no secrets in there - if anyone has interesting comments, feel
free to share them and I'll forward them to Jakob.
Bye
Frederik
___
legal-talk mailing lis
Dear LWG,
this is just for your information - not a request or action item.
There's a cartography student here in Karlsruhe who is doing his
bachelor thesis at Geofabrik. From a number of possible topics I offered
him, he chose this:
"Development and implementation of an alogrithm to eval
Francis,
On 12/14/10 10:38, Francis Davey wrote:
Anyway, this is a governance issue rather than a legal one. As drafted
the CT's will require 2/3 of all active contributors, not merely those
who vote.
As written in another message, I believe that in this case an active
contributor is one who
Hi,
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors.
The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%:
"An 'active contributor' is def
Hi,
On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is
deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising
you can think of. The balance is wrong, and
Hi,
On 12/10/10 00:15, Ed Avis wrote:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active
contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking
contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy.
Or OSMF could simply sell off
ril.
I don't see any problem on the contributor's side. Where I see the
problems with this approach is on the OSMF side.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
be deleted
and re-imported to take advantage of the greater flexibility, or can it
just be "switched"?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ever terms Creative
Commons deem suitable.
So either your "simple" definition of share-alike is correct and
everyone in real life is doing it wrong. Or maybe it is too simple.
Which was precisely the point I was trying to make.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org
Kevin,
Nice post. Your comparison with contributions of effort to voluntary
organisations is a good one, and has changed my view on the inclusion
of a clause that allows the licence to be changed.
Thank you for writing that. Now I have something I can point people to
when they say that parti
Simon,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote:
"I know
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the
license under which everyone elses content is published.
Yes. But n
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be
changed in the future without the cons
Andrew, Manuel -
On 12/06/2010 10:28 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
I feel that it is not safe at this point. I have raised my concerns in
this thread
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005299.html
The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing. I'
Anthony,
you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike
to which I replied:
On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set
of people that can ch
Hi,
On 11/26/10 16:24, Mike Dupont wrote:
Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is mine, and if those
100 people in 10 years make any step that I don't like then I will withdraw
my work from under them?
please stop at this point.
We are not talking about withdrawing anything h
Hi,
On 11/26/10 15:24, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
My thought experiment was based on being locked out of the server, being
unable to contribute, and thereby loosing the right to vote.
I agree that the CT currently seem to have no provision to make sure
that someone who *wants* to be an ac
Hi,
On 11/26/10 13:13, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I am sure that each part of the thought experiment is allowed under the
current CT rules. Or do you see something that violates the CT?
Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.
Now changing the CT doesn't violate the CT
Hi,
On 11/26/10 10:57, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I would never have contributed under a license that says: "All your
work is now ours. You give up all control. Bugger off if you
disagree."
I think you have misunderstood the issue at hand.
But let me change my thought experiment to somet
Erik,
On 11/25/10 00:30, Erik Johansson wrote:
And I'm very disappointed that people think mass mailing is ok, it's
not informing people in any useful way.
I don't think mass mailing is ok, and we should not encourage it.
On the other hand, even after the process has been going on for far mor
option,
the same mapper can simply start fixing the "red" stuff rather than
wasting time with emails.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 11/24/2010 10:57 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove
the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't
agreed to the new license.
I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam,
Are you sure this has so
Maybe you
wouldn't even store the address in plain text, but just a MD5 hash?
This is of course highly theoretical, as people are unlikely to even
request that geocoding table from you.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09"
t's just an x-ray
pornocam style rip-off and I would't want to see OSM mentioned in that
context.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
fine.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
lt to make any changes to it.
The boundary between "just a difficult file format" and "encryption" is
probably rather grey. The'd surely be on the safe side if they
distributed the contents of that file on a parallel channel in an easily
readable form.
Bye
Frederik
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
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
protected by database
right once again and you need a license to use it.
Otherwise, only the most obscure works (certainly not a printed map)
could fall under the "Produced Works" rule.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
Licensor grants to You a [...] license to do any act that is
restricted by copyright [...]. These rights include, without limitation,
the right to sublicense the work."
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
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"
r the currently-used licence, but you are not
required to give carte blanche for future changes.
I agree with Francis Davey that the current draft says this clearly enough.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09&q
Hi,
On 11/17/10 10:46, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is
considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as
the term means they would lose control over how their data is
licensed.
No, the data contributed to OSM can come
Richard,
On 11/17/10 03:30, Richard Weait wrote:
There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor
Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb
The language sounds more human now which is good. I like it how parts of
the
Hi,
On 11/17/10 04:26, Anthony wrote:
They left what process? The goal of the process was not to find a
license like the ODbL. The goal of the process was to address the sui
generis database right within the CC framework.
This is not a contradiction. The ODbL could well have been "the way to
ODbL in the
first place.
It was Creative Commons who started the process of looking for a license
that led to ODbL. It's just that Creative Commons left that process
along the way.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
op dissent from your Vision." when they
popped up here to discuss probably didn't help).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-tal
t; isn't made explicit, but I think it is safe
to say that an upgrade along that path would be possible with a lot less
eyes watching than an upgrade under the upgrade per clause 3 of the CT!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'3
that database would force you
to release the whole database under ODbL which would violate the terms
of CC-BY-SA.
There are ways in which data could legally be combined but that's really
going too much into detail for talk.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ##
he JOSM startup notice which
basically portrays the license change as a done deal, but so does the
Wiki banner we're showing and personally I believe the only way to pull
this through is indeed to make it very clear that we're committed to
making the license change, rather than dithering
to share
the database that contains your picture IDs keyed against locations in
the ODbL case since it could be argued that that database is "derived
from OSM" and "publicly used" in your service.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N
e
author - which is something completely different!
Thus, no problems with CC0, WTFPL etc. on that side.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-tal
Hi,
Richard Weait wrote:
Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so
insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or
database right?
Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes -
certainly qualifies for "never be considered for c
this not mean that we'd have to remove their contribution from OSM
immediately because the required permissions for re-use/distribution
have not been granted?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
ighted bits submitted by various users and combine them
then they don't suddenly become copyrighted - or maybe they do, but then
it's your copyright and not that of the original contributors (think of
tearing a magazine to shreds and then gluing together a nice picture
from the coloured pi
s, i.e. "B" would be a subset of "A", so that the
intersection of both would always be "B".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 10/03/2010 04:31 AM, John Smith wrote:
None of those examples applies since it was a question about copyright
ownership.
I don't see why we should treat a nation state's laws about copyright
any different than a nation state's idiosyncratic laws about maps or
surveying. If you are in
Hi,
On 10/02/2010 03:43 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
This is pretty clear, then: OSM also needs to be usable on Serbian territory,
so it can't use the maps.
Right... and OSM needs to be usable in India too, so it must show
Kashmir as belonging to India as it would otherwise be illegal. And of
course O
Kevin,
ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
(b) that there is a very clear (and legally sound) description of the
effect of the new licence when the time comes to vote so we can make
an informed decision which way to vote based on the effect it will
have.
I don't know how long you have been following t
han including it verbatim in 4.2b.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
l of
this - and why should we?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
risk of sidelining OSM in the long run, or such. "We already have
some data that is not compatible with " is not one of them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
Hi,
Kevin Cordina wrote:
What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce
a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping.
And vice versa. "I want to import and that's why we cannot use
" is tail-wagging-dog as well.
Bye
Frederik
___
he world. We are certainly not going to let the OS dictate the
license we choose for our data.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ople to draw in non-OSM data
at the rendering stage so that they don't feel tempted to drop their
rubbish into OSM just so that they get a nice map rendered.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
d at all.
I firmly believe that collecting third-party geodata into an user
editable pool is NOT the main purpose of OSM, and even detracts us.
Thus, I would never accept future liabilities in return for being
allowed to import a third-party data source.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eM
Hi,
Grant Slater wrote:
The NASA SRTM filled dataset is PD licensed. No issue.
The 3rd party void filled SRTM is often not PD licensed. Some sets are
explicitly non-commercial.
This is the case with the map that Martin mentioned, it uses the
noncommercial CGIAR dataset and thus cannot make co
ming a file? Does copyright then lie with the
author of the complex program, or is actually pushing the button on the
software in this case non-trivial enough to warrant copyright?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
quot;owns" the resulting data in OSM? A,
who devised the algorithms? B, who pushed the button and used his
computing time and network bandwidth? Both? Neither?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
er can simply refuse to agree to the contributor terms.
Indeed; the publisher could even be completely oblivious of them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailin
al with such questions in the future? Is the OSMF board
the ultimate arbiter? Can the definition be changed to be clearer?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
mple and doesn't
actually open any loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put
the PostGIS dump on a CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used
it would fall under the reverse engineering clause.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede.
are today). But imports under ODbL do not become
*impossible* with the CTs as they are suggested - they just require OSMF
approval. So the question is not put very well.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
k."
See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
and which is "weak"? The differ in where exactly share-alike
is applied, but they do not differ in strength.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ner - one of which, sadly, you do
not seem to be capable. For you, this is not a debate but an ego contest.
I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have
the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that.
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are
s of them are necessary and some are not necessary but prudent,
among them the much-discussed clause 3; only the most presumptuous
person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically
be the best license for the project for all time.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail
the community have agreed, we're only
using clause 3 of the contributor terms!").
I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
eone sued for share-alike they could at least
point to that statement to support their cause, whereas in the future OSMF
would actively reject giving such support.)
The worst thing that could happen is the license change failing and OSMF
afterwards pretending that we were still a share-alike project.
Bye
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
Mostly it's about community, which is why
it's here and not on le...@.
Unfortunately in my rebuttal of this I have to discuss legal stuff so
I'll do it in legal-talk and invite anybody who is interested to read it
there.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik
ta OSM cannot continue to use would be safe
with them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
Kevin Peat wrote:
Well I think someone wanting a PD project would need to start from
scratch anyway as it would be hard for them to demonstrate that any
existing data wasn't encumbered with other licenses given the wide use
of imports and tracing in lots of countries.
I think so too, but
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves
quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database
that is covered by the ODbL.
I would be interested to discussing
Hi,
Simon Biber wrote:
I and many others need a firm commitment to ensure contributions continue to be
protected by attribution and share-alike in the future.
-1
(I mean, you may "need" that but you shouldn't get it. As an aside I
also want to point out that the use of "continue to be protec
sidered for
some exceptional cases where imports under, say, CC-BY-SA have already
been done but as you correctly say, these can become a liability later.
It will almost certainly (IANABM, IANALWGM) not be considered for future
imports.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm #
the data
working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an
OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)...
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
(Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're
Exactly... you are trying to sell us a particular happy meal that
isn't making us happy...
"us" being...?
And I'm not trying to sell anything. If you agree that some for of CT is
required, and y
Hi,
Francis Davey wrote:
Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis
database right of the European Union?
Certainly the EU hasn't, the whole database right is written for a world
where company X pays employees to gather data.
I am wondering (as others have wondered
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as "the
license change". I don't think that you can separate them.
Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless
they are a package deal?
No, my statement above is not politically or
John,
John Smith wrote:
But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew* this
would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to alienate
Because you keep making it a license issue, but of course it's not and
you know it.
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are par
Andrzej,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
Let's put it this way:
If 300 mappers are enough to put in a veto against the CT or the license
change then we can stop right now, because I am pretty sure that
*whatever* you do (even if y
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I think that the people count more than the data they contribute.
That's a good statement. I'm happy that you have finally come to
understand what this project is about! I was beginning to think you
might just be here for the fun of the argument, whatever argument it
s.
I'm posting this to legal-talk because even though this posting does not
deal with anything legal, I have a hunch that follow-ups will.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
erly, thus bringing
them "into" the system.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
No, I don't think so.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
(moving this thread to legal-talk)
Valent:
AFAIK with new Contributor Terms [1] all data entered into OSM can be
taken by some company, closed and they could create a product made
profit on it.
Grant:
No, they have to make the data available. The data is share-alike.
http://www.opendatacommo
Hi,
Emilie Laffray wrote:
While I am not a legal expert, I will try to answer that one.
Companies can already make money from OpenStreetMap: there are plenty of
examples around (Skobbler, Cloudmade, Geofabrik, etc). There is
nothing preventing a company from using the data. However, they a
tever that
is). - A clause in the ODbL that lifts protection after a period which
is shorter than the CC-BY under which the source came would make the
source inadmissible.
I like your idea but I don't think now is the right time for it.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede
David,
David Groom wrote:
Secondly from the second line of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo#Legalities you will see the
phrase "Yahoo! have agreed to let OSM use their aerial imagery" [ under
the old licence terms], and large parts of the remainder of that page go
on to mention the a
Hi,
David Groom wrote:
However from a legal point of view the CT terms say is is an agreement
between "you" and OSMF.
Interesting, and probably true. But since making the second account
forces you to use a different email address, how will we ever know with
certainty that "you" and "you" are
201 - 300 of 684 matches
Mail list logo
