Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright:
> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM "
>
Again: it is just a hypothetical example.
Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as
non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be
sensible (just imagine
Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a
different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly
the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread as
stipulations that company XYZ is violating the licence.
Could we pls have some comments on
I've added a clarification to the example in question as it is causing
some contention.
Simon
Am 22.09.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright:
>> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM "
>>
> Again: it
Am 22.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a
> legal point of view, how it should be interpreted?
Please read the introduction to the proposed guideline.
>
> I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise
Am 21.09.2015 um 14:01 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>
> I don't believe that the restaurant star rating is a good example, as
> we don't rate restaurants ourselves,
I'm using a hypothetical, but "in principle could be possible" example
on purpose for the negative scenario.
> and copying the
Dear All
One of the big grey areas remaining wrt our distribution licence is
defining if, and how you can link from external data to an OpenStreetMap
derived dataset. Nailing this down is, in my opinion, key to progress in
getting rid of other areas of contention (for example geo-coding).
In the
Hi Steve
Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
they currently using?
Simon
Am 30.08.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Steve Bennett:
> Hi all,
> I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria
> (southeast Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be
Simone, you are flogging a really dead horse (which has been discussed
many many many times before).
- the licence of the GADM dataset is incompatible with OSM
- in dire circumstances and with a very large effort, as Paul has
pointed out, three and a half years ago I managed to get hold of the
Am 25.08.2015 um 20:14 schrieb Tom Lee:
The main point is however that while we can pontificate as much as we
want that something might be legal in country X, Y or Z, it doesn't
really matter: for OSM to be useful in a country (and our goal is to be
useful in as many countries as possible,
We've typically never made a fuss about formalities (aka in triplicate
and signed with blood :-)) and as long as it is clear who is giving the
permission and in which role, I suspect we would be happy with an e-mail
version (extra points if digitally signed).
Simon
signature.asc
Description:
I suspect the problem is not quite as large as you think it might be.
If they want to use a public licence, while it may not be actually
explicitly said anywhere, CC0 or the PDDL are naturally totally acceptable.
For one offs/special permission I would suggest using
an extra permission for that be required?
Best Regards.
Ivan.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote:
Ivan
The problem is that it is a legal can of worms. I would suggest simply
asking for explicit permission, or at least formal
Ivan
The problem is that it is a legal can of worms. I would suggest simply
asking for explicit permission, or at least formal confirmation that
tracing from the imagery does not create a derivative work and that the
government has no rights in such vectorized data.
It is, as you may have seen
Am 29.06.2015 um 17:00 schrieb John Bergmayer:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:55:08 +0200, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
A condition of having a valid licence to use OSM data is providing a
suitable way of pointing out the conditions of use of said data to your
users/customers/etc (which
Well the more basic question is: would you in the end have a marketable
product that you could sell in places where people actually have money?
And the answer is likely no.
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk
are enshrined in the following places:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines
Simon
Am 27.06.2015 um 10:23 schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
Simon Poole wrote:
As the name of this list says
Am 27.06.2015 um 17:02 schrieb Tom Lee:
But of course OSM extracts and snapshots are available all over the web,
and from interfaces that don't introduce or even mention any contractual
relationship with OSMF as a condition of download (whether the user is
an OSM contributor or has
Jan Erik
As the name of this list says it is legal talk (aka yapping without
consequence) ... not get-help-from-the-OSMF. The proper places to
address are plastered all over openstreetmap.org and osmfoundation.org:
le...@osmfoundation.org (policy issues and similar) or
Am 26.06.2015 um 16:55 schrieb Tom Lee:
As the name of this list says it is legal talk (aka yapping
without consequence) ... not get-help-from-the-OSMF
I'm sorry to see this practice discouraged. The archive description[1]
says this is the list for discussion of all legal matters relating
Am 26.06.2015 um 16:55 schrieb Tom Lee:
... As I noted elsewhere[2], EU and US law don't seem to
make database IDs eligible for copyright (or associated license
requirements), at least when their reproduction is associated with the
lawful use of the relevant database. So I think
Am 13.05.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Tom Lee:
..
Nope. I was referring to collective databases in the ODbL which are
roughly the equivalent of collective works in early versions of CC
licenses and only require the OSM derived part to be subject to the ODbL
terms.
This is the
Am 06.05.2015 um 16:42 schrieb Tom Lee:
...
I think the vast quantity of CC-BY licenses data is too important a
resource to ignore given the slightness of this limitation, but I
understand the need for conservatism. One of Creative Commons' US
affiliates is located at a law school here in
Am 05.05.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
...
My question was does CC-BY 4.0 have the same issue? Could CC-BY 4.0
data be included in OSM.
...
My, very conservative, reading of CC-BY 4.0 would indicate that it has
additional issues over just the attribution problem for databases.
CC-BY
that aspect does not seem to be very high on the priority list
of anybody.
Simon
Am 06.05.2015 um 11:25 schrieb Simon Poole:
Am 05.05.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
...
My question was does CC-BY 4.0 have the same issue? Could CC-BY 4.0
data be included in OSM.
...
My, very conservative
Am 06.05.2015 um 16:42 schrieb Tom Lee:
..
I think things are getting a little mixed up. The ODbL refers to
Derivative Databases and Produced Works but not Derivative Works
(well, except one, but I think that line exists because of poor
drafting, not a deliberate choice).
I *think* you
I've done some thinking on further aspects of the geocoding issue and
have written a diary post on teh subject:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/34858
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
The wiki is the wiki ... aka anybody can edit it. You should likely not
be relying on it as primary source for legal advice for your company.
Specifically the page in question has a header that reads:
This wiki page was used for discussion and development of the move to
the Open Database
Am 10.03.2015 um 20:07 schrieb Charles Henck:
...
The public can access our system, but they only can see the responses to
their own queries (with attached geocode). Based on your response,
would that not be publicly conveyed?
This likely boils down to who owns the rights to the data in
Am 10.03.2015 um 02:10 schrieb Alex Barth:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline#.22Collective_Database.22_alternative
1. Why is the input data
Am 09.03.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Charles Henck:
...
Q: More confusingly, if we used OSM to get the geocode a
latitude/longitude (or reverse geocode an address) for a dropped
request, would the database of requests (and private responses) be open?
...
I have difficulties understanding
Am 02.03.2015 um 21:51 schrieb Jennifer Bauman:
Thank you all for your responses. I apologize for the vagueness - this
is a highly confidential project.
I suspect you will be better served by asking your question on
legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org Just as here we can naturally not
Am 02.03.2015 um 18:08 schrieb Jennifer Bauman:
Hi,
I'm thinking of using OSM in a way that I believe is different that the
use cases discussed
at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases and I would like
to know what the license requirements would be for this use case.
The
Am 20.02.2015 um 08:52 schrieb Simon Poole:
...
Treating the geocoded results plus input data as a derivative DB
sidesteps various issues.
...
I should have mentioned that the single biggest advantage is that it
doesn't require us to supply a definition of what geocoding actually
Am 03.11.2014 um 00:45 schrieb Alex Barth:
I have two questions on the Collective DB alternative:
The derivative database consists of the data that has been used as the
input data for the geocoding process, as well as the data that has been
gained from OpenStreetMap in the process. Any
The SA versions of the CC commons licences prior to 4.0 are incompatible
with both the CTs and the ODbL.
The 4.0 version is some what out in the open because they are very new
and AFAIK there has been no rigorous investigation of the compatibility
issues, but it is unlikely that the situation is
Am 07.01.2015 um 13:00 schrieb Henning Hollburg:
Let's say I have a great source of Floating Car Data (FCD). I'd like to
use this FCD to calculate precise weights for edges I derived from OSM.
These edges will be used in an online navigation application later on.
The crux is the later on
Please see
http://osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
like this.
-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
Komu: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 7. 1. 2015 9:09:38
Předmět: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl
license of OSM data
Please see
http://osmfoundation.org/wiki/License
Am 31.12.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber:
.
Are these objects to be released in ODbL and have they to be given back to
the community?
Since the CC-BY-SA tiles might have some generalisation (smoothing,
selection), this license also has to be encountered.
.
IMHO it really
Am 01.12.2014 15:08, schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
This also raises the question of whether there are any other
OGL-licensed datasets out there that have been used in OSM, but which
contain undocumented third-party IP rights that we don't have
permission to use.
This is,
The issue is not that you will not find a jurisdiction in which it is
legal, the issue is that you will surely find one where (at least
systematic) extraction of information from the videos violates the
rights of the copyright (or similar rights) holder, not to mention ToS
issues.
Now if that is
Am 05.08.2014 20:25, schrieb Martijn van Exel:
...
Note that YouTube users can also choose a CC-BY license - which should
be compatible with ODbL. But the default is the Standard YouTube License
outlined above.
...
CC-BY is not per se compatible. We need (and I believe this is still the
Am 03.08.2014 16:16, schrieb Mikel Maron:
...
If it is the understanding of the OSM Foundation, that the Legal Working
Group in some ways functions like a Court, then there are several issues
to raise about the separation of concerns, checks and balances if you
will, in this process as
Am 27.07.2014 23:52, schrieb Alex Barth:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote:
If you apply this to your above example, the addresses would be subject
to SA (however no further information), and while potentially one could
Am 23.07.2014 00:04, schrieb Matthias Schmid:
Does this mean that it is sufficient, if I provide the Database (the
identical data) in a different format (which is not proprietary), e.g. under
the ODbL? Your answer seems to suggest that this true. However, I think what
confuses me is the
Hi Matthias
I believe your use case is covered by ODbL 4.7, given that distributing
the data in a format that would have to be at least reverse-engineered
for extraction is clearly a technological measure. 4.7 simply requires
you, in your use case, to make the data available parallel in an open
A general note on the examples: using Nominatim as the geocoder muddies
the waters a bit too much in my opinion, given that with the default
options nominatim returns far more than just coordinates.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Am 11.07.2014 14:40, schrieb Stephan Knauss:
..
A while ago there was a discussion about the word geocode which seems
to be a trademark in some jurisdictions. So opposed to the general term
geocoding the word geocode might need to be used with care.
Yes, correct, Alex can you please
Nils, noch ein Update. HRS hat sich jetzt gemeldet und ich werde
vermutlich später diese Woche mal ein Gespräch mit ihnen führen.
Gruss
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
Sigh went to the wrong address, but nothing secret anyway.
Am 12.05.2014 22:50, schrieb Simon Poole:
Nils, noch ein Update. HRS hat sich jetzt gemeldet und ich werde
vermutlich später diese Woche mal ein Gespräch mit ihnen führen.
Gruss
Simon
Luis
The LWG has spent considerable time discussing the geocoding issue, so
it is not as if we've ignored the subject.
To illustrate just one of the issues, have a look at the first mail you
reference from Olov, he defines Geocoding as The process of finding and
storing the latitude and
Am 06.05.2014 21:40, schrieb Rob Myers:
On 05/05/14 09:16 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
We have raised the question of Dynamic Data in a dedicated guideline
given that a number of things are not so clear and even while, using the
example from the guideline, the occupancy of a parking lot
Am 05.05.2014 06:38, schrieb Rob Myers:
..
But the license doesn't exist to collect data for OSM.
..
True, but our immediate, admittedly egoistic, interest is that we are
free to use any improvements (in a wide sense of the word) to OSM data
and that derivatives of OSM remain free.
While I think the case of the traffic data is interesting, it really
very much depends on implementation details if and when a derivative DB
might be created.
For example if weights were calculated from the data and associated
directly with OSM ways then likely you would have a derivative DB,
Am 04.05.2014 10:51, schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar:
.
I think fair use/fair dealing could apply here and they have no
obligations? (But an attribution would be nice.)
My understanding of fair dealing is that it would not apply here
(different in the states or for example in Germany).
Am 03.05.2014 10:26, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen:
And by looking at the list of Top
users editing over the past in [1], imports has nowadays a huge importance
for the project - I was here, sitting in my own armchair. I did this import.
Since I'm with the project I
Am 03.05.2014 19:34, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen:
Do you feel that the attribution page should provide better recognition for
OSM that for the other data providers? OSM data is probably the biggest data
source worldwide so it could be reasonable. However, in Finland and Norway,
for example, MapBox
Tobias, please study the guidelines, they address exactly this problem.
Simon
Am 30.04.2014 12:18, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
.
But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the
original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require
people to publish data that
Am 29.04.2014 18:56, schrieb Luis Villa:
.
Without commenting on/endorsing Alex's position, suffice to say that the
vast majority of lawyers I've talked with about the license, including
many with long experience in open software licenses, find the license
difficult to interpret.
Just a reminder, this thread started of with a discussion of
attribution, or rather lack of such. I don't think there is very much
doubt about what the licence requires even given all the complexity of
the ODbL, for a produced work it is:
However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must
There are some moderate complicated edge cases caused by and there are
some things that will not be possible with share alike and are not
intended to be possible in the first place.
Naturally anybody is completely within its rights to lobby for changes
that would better fit their business
The LWG might actually publish a formal guideline on the subject, but my
informal 2c for now:
- it is fairly clear that you -could- import 3rd party ODbL licensed
data under the CT (naturally assuming every other box for an import has
been ticked too). The CTs only require compatibility with the
Am 25.04.2014 16:17, schrieb Pieren:
...
So, you mean that the main objection to import ODBL data is a future
licence change. But I remember some past messages here or elsewhere
that the licence process is so heavy and requires so high acceptance
that a licence change is almost
Am 25.04.2014 14:00, schrieb Erik Johansson:
http://www.mapillary.com/osm.html
I probably should have added that I see no problem at all with the terms
Mapillary specifies, since for contributions to OSM it only specifies
that it should happen under the terms of the CTs. IMHO naturally.
Am 15.04.2014 18:56, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Interestingly even the OSMF is infracting the license ;-)
Nope, non of the content on that page was uploaded or provided by the
OSMF. In fact we have only recently taken control of the account.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
done so and that we should
respect, regardless of legalities*.
Simon
* depending on jurisdiction this could go far further that copyright,
database and contract law, for example unfair competition legislation
and so on.
Am 08.04.2014 10:23, schrieb Pieren:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Simon
Am 08.04.2014 10:55, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-04-08 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch:
@Martin It is undoubtedly so that the information in question is -not-
simply available for use. You need to invest the time and effort to
actually
Am 08.04.2014 16:16, schrieb Paulo Carvalho:
..
I guess I missed something. Can you, please, explain that? I didn't
get the IP issues part and consequently why Google unlikely would be
the problem. That leads to the question about who would pose problems.
There is simply a
Most has already been said on this topic. Just one comment on the,
superficially sane sounding, idea of getting a declaratory judgement:
forgetting the ethical side of it (do we really want to use data
collected by somebody that doesn't want us to do so?), we would need
such a judgement in -every-
Their are quite a few facets of this issue, just some of many:
- do you actually have access to an original copy? Obviously who ever is
providing access to an online version is completely free to define
whatever ToS they want.
- sweat of the brow provisions as Eugene mentions
- dead for
By far not the first and likely not the last, attributing OSM to google.
Send them a nice e-mail pointing out openstreetmap.org/copyright and for
added brownie points they should include a link to
openstreemap.org/fixthemap
If they don't react or fix it, send a note to the LWG.
Simon
Am
Do you have any indication from when the data may be? At least roughly
pre/post licence change (pre-licence change data would naturally pose a
number of questions)?
In general attribution of OSM in the context of non-map uses is not
particularly good and hasn't been policed at the same level. We
Am 27.02.2014 01:03, schrieb Luis Villa:
...
Note that this is a substantially different task for 4.0 than for 3.0,
because 4.0 (particularly BY-SA) now includes a database copyleft
clause. Assessing how the ODBL and CC BY-SA 4.0 database clauses
interact will be challenging. OSM/Open Data
Am 13.01.2014 13:17, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
.
given that the OSM attribution is given equal prominence with their
own Terms and their imagery attribution. (By the way, Alex and Eric
from MapBox are members of this mailing list.) Surely should be given
equal prominence with the map
I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile
browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so far
that we want OSM attribution on everything :-)
Am 14.01.2014 12:38, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 14/gen/2014 um 10:54 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
Am 14.01.2014 14:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014/1/14 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch
I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile
browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so
far that we want OSM attribution
Apple does not, as far as we know, use OSM data ODbL licensed by the
foundation.
Simon
Am 12.01.2014 13:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Am 10/gen/2014 um 13:01 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute minimal
requirements we
That are not the last board minutes as you know, there are:
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10
Am 11.01.2014 10:07, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen:
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow:
I
like the Mapbox
Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow:
I like the Mapbox solution the author mentions of putting a box on the
map to take you to another page. I realize that unless the user clicks
on the link, they will never discover that OSM contributed to this
product. Since OSM may be only one of
of visibility.
Regards,
Fernando
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote:
Hi Fernando
I gather from your questions that they are currently not
distributing the data under
Hi Fernando
I gather from your questions that they are currently not distributing
the data under a (well-)known licence or on any other documented terms?
In any case before spending to much effort on trying to nail down the
legal side, you really need to clarify if this is suitable data for OSM
Mikel
I believe there is a simple solution, please document the source with
the full text of the licence or with a statement by the lawyer in
question, since the later is unlikely to forthcoming (we probably
wouldn't do that either), its going to be the former. I find it quite
understandable
I'm trying to
prevent the TrackSource folks from losing interest in OSM.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server
Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite
yes from me. There is a term in singular that should be plural I
believe. But otherwise completely ok with me.
Simon
Am 09.07.2013 20:38, schrieb Michael Collinson:
Simon,
Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over
It seems as if we inadvertently CC's this to the public legal-talk list
and not to the LWG one.
Apologies to all.
Simon
Am 09.07.2013 21:56, schrieb Simon Poole:
Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite
yes from me. There is a term in singular that should
Hi Paul
Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission from HGK (with
a pointer that the data is freely available elsewhere and that removing
it would add up to deleting and re-adding exactly the same data)? Having
such permission would seem to be the best solution right now.
2nd
Am 29.04.2013 10:18, schrieb Paul Norman:
From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:58 PM
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey
Hi Paul
Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission
Am 29.04.2013 11:14, schrieb Henning Scholland:
Am 29.04.2013 10:42, schrieb Simon Poole:
However in the current
case I doubt that there is actually something useful for OSM left once
the names are gone.
If the information There is a village stays in OSM, it would be
useful at all. If you
Am 29.04.2013 11:27, schrieb Simon Poole:
I would agree that there is some value in having naked place
nodes. However considering that at best we are talking about 2-3k
such nodes surviving it is a question if doing an imagery based
add a place drive or similar
Bekim
The basic issue is likely to be that we never received permission to
distribute the original imported data with the ODbL implying that the
date had to be removed prior to the licence change. The redaction
process was designed to preserve as much work as possible is such
situations, but for
Am 07.03.2013 17:20, schrieb Bekim Kajtazi:
To help understand better, this is how data got into OSM:
I digitized the data from topo maps
Shared the SHP File with FLOSSK in Prishtina
FLOSSK recruited many volunteers to get the data in OSM
Few months later data was removed from OSM
Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik:
How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is
licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD
Produced Work to credit OSM?
Sincerely,
This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3
Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm
The use of the term Database in an intellectual property context has
essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The
statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading.
I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time
it came up.
Phone currently.
Am 18.01.2013 20:04, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/1/18 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz:
The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.
are you meeting on IRC or is this a telephone conference?
cheers,
Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use
OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because
Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
1. I used OSM as the basemap for my map of refugee camps, the camp
data is my organizations and licensed CC BY-NC. The data for OSM and
the camp data is never combined. I release my map under CC-BY-NC. I
believe this is okay.
All IMHO naturally.
I personally can't see enough wiggle room both in the ODbL and the CTs
to make any dataset generated by geocoding and/or reverse geocoding
anything else than a derivative database. It is just the ODbL working as
intended. We went through a lot of effort to get from a broken to a
functional
Am 17.07.2012 13:01, schrieb fk270...@fantasymail.de:
The detrimental license bot now has reached Germany and promptly left a lot
of errors here.
Let's just look at one city, Göttingen in Northern Germany, where I have
contacted some undecided users, so I have some knowledge about pre-bot
Am 21.06.2012 19:35, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
The huge amount of data is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of
nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me,
Actually in real life the damage to nodes is substantially less. On the
one hand I don't respect the V0 rule, on the other hand and more
101 - 200 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
