Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data

2013-07-08 Thread Igor Brejc
getting the approval/agreement from the CGIAR data owner to use the elevation data for commercial purposes. Best regards, Igor Brejc On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote: It is enhanced SRTM from cgiar: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/ E.g. see: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data

2013-07-08 Thread Igor Brejc
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi Igor, exactly in those areas I have a problem of understanding the OSM license :) If you store the elevation data in the original grid-based form No, as explained, I do intent to calculate edge weights based on OSM and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data

2013-07-08 Thread Igor Brejc
To answer all your questions in one go: there has been a lot of discussion (especially on this mailing list) about the problems/issues you raised. And there have been some efforts to better clarify these things. I suggest reading the mailing list archive. My own opinion is that the legal issues

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases

2012-11-30 Thread Igor Brejc
about your redrafted guideline has agreed with it - maybe it's time to go ahead and replace what's there now. Jonathan. On 05/11/12 19:46, Igor Brejc wrote: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.netmailto: j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Michael's reply to you

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases

2012-11-05 Thread Igor Brejc
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/11/5 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net: btw.: also removing might be of interest, e.g. someone checking all businesses in OSM and removing them in the case they are closed now would be a major improvement

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

2012-10-30 Thread Igor Brejc
in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b *. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline On 29/10/2012 18:07, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi Michael, First of all, thanks for the link. I've read it carefully and it doesn't really

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

2012-10-30 Thread Igor Brejc
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 10/30/12 08:19, Igor Brejc wrote: Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative Databases. In what form can you then offer such a Database to someone that requests it? I don't think

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

2012-10-22 Thread Igor Brejc
Hi, My understanding (emphases are mine): “*Contents*” – The contents of this Database, which includes the information, independent works, or other material collected into the Database. For example, the contents of the Database could be factual data or works such as *images*, audiovisual

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

2012-10-22 Thread Igor Brejc
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

2012-10-22 Thread Igor Brejc
complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

2012-10-22 Thread Igor Brejc
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were