On 07/16/2010 01:01 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they are
afraid not enough people will relicence
On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
even if
it doesn't apply to some
On 07/16/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,
In the US.
OKFN
seem to think it might.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 07/14/2010 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
forked for their relicensing? Or Mozilla? They managed to find
On 07/15/2010 10:38 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 15 July 2010 18:55, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
OSM has a clear mandate for the change. A majority (more than half) of the
electorate voted, and a clear majority of the votes were for the change.
Less than 49% of those eligible to vote,
On 07/15/2010 10:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 00:48, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
More than half. And within that more than half, the vote was overwhelming.
Which is amusing, because it wouldn't have passed if few people that
disagreed hadn't voted.
Counterfactuals don't
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:47:47 +0200, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com
wrote:
If ODBL existed in the same variants as CC does, this would be easier.
I support CC very strongly, but I don't recommend licence variants. They
make things even more confusing and incompatible.
OSM can be viewed as
On 05/03/10 20:16, Liz wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, elf Pavlik wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I just asked on GeoNames mailing list why they don't use OSM for their
map functionality.
http://groups.google.com/group/geonames/t/ec02877f850cf6c7
A person named Marc responded that OSM share-alike
On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up
your copyright
On 12/12/09 11:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
but even with ODbL in place and considering the best interests of the
project as a whole, for me it would be perfectly sufficient to be able
to say publicly that X is using OSM illegally.
Rather than naming and shaming, the FSF and the SFLC always
On 12/12/09 12:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Agreed, although this of course requires determined and capable people
to do the work. If there are such people in OSM who do that voluntarily
then that's good. If there are no such people then I would object to
spending money to hire them from
On 11/12/09 10:26, James Livingston wrote:
* You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the
ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above).
I believe that the FSF copyright assignment scheme licences your work
back to you once you sign
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Yes. The fork must be under the ODbL.
(I am not a lawyer, etc.)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
SteveC wrote:
No I think there are some substantial issues, but they're inflated
because of the PoV.
I didn't have a chance to get to Science Commons while I was in Boston
last week but I did talk to various people who are Smarter Than Me (tm)
from the FSF and CC and none of them supported
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
1. Creative Commons licences define Work (which you're quoting in the case
of 4a) as the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of
this License (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to
give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you
waive all right to
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote:
I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with
fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed.
The licence discussion has been going on for a couple of *years* now.
It needs
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
OJ W wrote:
the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
You can create an image and
John Wilbanks wrote:
(although I find the idea that freedom can only come from the
barrel of a license deeply depressing).
That's CC Zero out of the running then.
If Big Company decides to run a mechanical turk contest on Amazon to
extract facts from your DB one at a time, do they violate
John Wilbanks wrote:
This is why if you peruse the CC0 site, you'll see it referred to as a
legal tool and not a license. It's a small thing, but an important thing
to remember. Conflating the waiving of rights with the licensing of
rights is what we're trying to avoid in this context.
Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer =
to a
situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to
something where only part of it is.=20
A collective work includes the untransformed work.
A derivative work adapts it in some way.
One can claim
MJ Ray wrote:
As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no
matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a
criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison.
Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the
well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources
(and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot
of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading
Simon Ward wrote:
I can’t help but think it would be more with the spirit of the project
to have open development of the licence, and that it would have been
beneficial if this had been an open development much earlier.
I've submitted comments on previous drafts of the licence via the blog
it
Please don't post personal emails when discussing trustworthiness. :-(
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Peter Miller wrote:
I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
present).
Frederik's email of 16.40 covers what I would like
Rob Myers wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
present).
Frederik's email of 16.40
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
What information can we use from these sources under 'fair use' rules?
Under English Welsh or European law, none. There's no Fair Use exception here.
Under American law, whatever you can get away with in court.
I
Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
For example,
if a photographer geotags a picture using OSM, what are the chances of
a local surveyor (or any other contributor) wanting to decide how that
copy of the photograph must then be licensed?
Zero.
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
-
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM, brendan barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Would I be allowed to leave out the user and timestamp tags in
the version that I create? Could I leave out any unnecessary tags
(there are a few)?
Yes, you can. The
Frederik Ramm wrote:
In my eyes this modular nonsense is actually the greatest problem with
the CC licenses and I'm happy not to see it repeated here.
A little harsh but I do agree that licence proliferation is a bad
thing. ODbL should not support it.
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly recommend that any first contacts
be much more friendly, point out potential issues and offer reasonings
and a way to enter into discussion to do things correctly.
Yes I think this is important.
The Creative
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd rather it need not be legally binding, just automatic. The problem
is that the laws to restrict exist at all, not the philosophy behind
keeping things free.
The laws that do or do not restrict data are
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy answered that in the message you are replying to, but you edited
his answer out.
D'oh. Sorry about that. :-(
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you instead give the customer a heavily DRMed and encrypted version
of your data, together with some decryption/processing software and with
an OSM data file, and make it so that the PDF is generated on the
customer's
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the main problems with sharealike/copyleft is the large number of
incompatible licenses. I suggest explicitly adding some important such
licenses to 4.4 iii, so we don't lock too many other free communities
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My example above did *not* contain distribution of any OSM-derived work.
The items that were distributed were (a) proprietary software, (b)
proprietary data, and (c) unaltered OSM data.
(c) is distribution
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
most is not enough. There are reasons to link data into a program.
I am a Lisp programmer. Code is data. ;-)
And use of the GPL is not restricted to software. Maybe I want to make a
map where some location is marked by a GPLed image. Maybe I want to put
some
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say 'everyone else is worse off' if they use a PD map. It seems
like the bus company wins - they have more passengers.
Privatising wealth is always a win for those who privatise it but this
isn't really a reason for
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _do_ like the fact that people in OSM are starting to figure out why
Potlatch is called Potlatch.
I had assumed it was a kind of stew. ;-)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
In the US, the FSF are very careful to say that the GPL is a license,
not a contract.
The proposed ODbL, on the other hand, is very careful to point out that
it wants to be a license as well as a contract
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
clicktrough
is the embodiment of impracticality.
Yes.
Using the data should require no agreement. Distributing modifications
(and by distributing I mean exposing in any way to users not employed
or subcontracted by your
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876
messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.
Me too. ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if it is even possible to write down a sharp distinction
between the two cases, but for me there is a world of difference between
(a) giving a data base to someone whom I pay to do something with it for
me -
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I believe that it is entirely appropriate and practical for all
60,000 contributors (or 600,000!) to be listed on the OpenStreetMap website;
that seems entirely 'appropriate for the medium or means' and I suggest
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if I offer processed OSM data on my web site for others to use under
CC-BY-SA: Whom do the others have to give attribution? I usually expect
everyone to retain the OpenStreetMap contributors message and leave me
(or my
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
In Linux that problem is solved by companies bying their product from
Redhat, including some kind of insurance that RedHat provides. If there
are legal hassles, then Redhat would be sued and RedHat would have to
deal with the 2 copyright holders and not the
Which particular FUD do you have in mind? ;-)
*Any* licence will carry legal risks. Paying for a proprietary dataset
without talking the licence through with a lawyer would be silly. There
is no reason why a free licence should be any different. Simple
licences are not necessarily easier to
John Wilbanks wrote:
ps - Those of you interested in copyleft and freedom might want to
interview Stallman on this issue as well.
I tend not to agree with him on non-software issues but I would be very
interested to know what he thinks, particularly since he has just been
through a major
201 - 249 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
