On 6 April 2014 00:04, Paulo Carvalho paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com wrote:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps
I see many people agree that we can use the images to access reality. This
does not mean we're using the images themselves,
On 9 April 2013 21:43, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The ODbL has a provision for parallel distribution in 4.7b:
You may impose terms or technological measures on the Database ... in
contravention of Section 4.74 a. only if You also make a copy of the
Database or a Derivative
Hi,
I'm relaying a license question from a company that collects lake
bathymetry data and sells specialised GPS devices to fishers and
sailors. They don't make the software on those devices and have to
pay to get their data converted to the format understood by that
software. They'd like to add
Hi,
On 23 October 2012 11:44, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
...
During the license change discussion, my position was often this: Instead of
trying to codify everything in watertight legalese, let's just make the data
PD and write a human-readable moral contract that lists things
On 28 May 2012 23:03, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
moving the discussion to legal
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Copying and pasting is not a copyright infringement. The Contributor
Terms don't require that the data inserted
Hi,
On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
Hey All,
I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing
from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite
imagery.
- So let's say you fly photos of an area
- To stitch them together you
Hi,
On 7 March 2012 09:16, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the
license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we
should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are
of
On 7 March 2012 16:57, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
On 07/03/12 15:45, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in
place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since
sliced bread I still can't see the reasons
On 13 February 2012 12:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0
for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as
bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to
data
On 2 February 2012 15:11, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said give away. But
obviously we're talking about the grant of rights.
Yes, every open soruce license is a grant of rights, as that's the basic
definition
On 30 January 2012 15:21, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
(I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point)
It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a
non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i
Hi Robert,
On 31 January 2012 21:53, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had
not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't
contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned
On 30 January 2012 12:13, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
new way
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
I sort-of feel responsible for my areas of the map, but I wouldn't go
so far as to call it my data. I contribute to this map, because I want
free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into
the hands of the community of
On 19 January 2012 21:48, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 18.01.2012 23:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list)
to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in
I didn't know about that list - I'll join it.
On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/16 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com:
The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very
conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what
we're going to have to live with.
+1
Are
On 18 January 2012 23:33, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 01/18/2012 05:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the
intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to
OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed
On 27 December 2011 15:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Did you manage to address your example of a user
On 28 December 2011 01:49, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in red
on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. These
streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs to add
On 20 December 2011 21:27, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Dear All,
LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.
Draft minutes are here.
On 21 December 2011 12:43, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balrogg@... writes:
- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
reconciling the data base?
Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
that are known to come from ODbL
[changing lists]
On 15 December 2011 13:30, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote:
Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what
the
source for moving the nodes was.
Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools
On 27 November 2011 14:10, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Mike N. wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if
someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account)
Is this a way that we might be able to
On 27 November 2011 15:14, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up
edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just
retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote:
If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant
all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements
are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly
OSM community can help your
On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure
On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
which would prevent their uses.
News to me
On 17 June 2011 17:17, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
that the content is not protected by database
On 14 May 2011 18:49, Kolossos tim.al...@s2002.tu-chemnitz.de wrote:
This september will be a relative large event from Wikimedia-side across
europe: Wiki Loves Monuments. It is a public photo contest around
monuments (overview of the cultural heritage, also small houses) and we will
create
On 17 April 2011 11:39, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor
terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach
of the CC-BY-SA license.
Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that
content
On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
Thanks Grant,
I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
unclear:
What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor
terms mean:
From CT 1.2.4/2
Hi Joao,
On 21 January 2011 16:32, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing!
To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too
restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in
the open source / community space
On 5 January 2011 13:24, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined,
why
are we not using it now?
I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we still
On 22 December 2010 15:18, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm
frede...@remote.org wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM
stops
publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the
On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed
data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound
to remove
On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that
is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an
No. Its purpose
On 2 December 2010 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
fx99 wrote:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to
OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain to me, who is meant by any party that receives
Hi,
On 22 November 2010 13:43, Johnny Rose Carlsen o...@wenix.dk wrote:
Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/21/2010 08:53 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Legally they might have to attribute OSM but I'm really thankful
they don't, because what they have to sell is some shady software
that
Hi Xavier,
On 22 November 2010 22:03, Xavier Loiseau xavier.lois...@ijoinery.com wrote:
1. You don't have to release what you haven't got. So if the only thing
required for your application to work is the *location* then just store the
location and not the address. You can still dump the
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 11:24, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 10:14, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused
ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too.
So, in that case, if
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
produced map tiles, so they
On 17/11/2010, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 17 November 2010 01:27, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
These people would still want everything that is used by OSM
under ODbL to be re-mapped from scratch.
Who are These people? Nobody I know is calling for any
On 16 November 2010 23:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If Creative Commons had been more friendly towards the data licensing issue,
a similar window could have been opened in a hypothetical CC-BY-SA 3.1;
They could probably make ODbL a compatible license but that wouldn't
satisfy
On 19 October 2010 18:27, Kevin Sharpe kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
In what jurisdiction?
People will be adding data worldwide.
yes, anyone can extract and use your data without restriction, regardless
of whether or not it's added to OSM.
Is this true? If we encourage people to add
Hi,
sorry for replying a little late, I'm not up to date,
On 28 September 2010 21:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
Which would be true if I had the technical ability to render the
data. I don't. However, some kind soul has written a renderer for
On 20 September 2010 23:26, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 September 2010 06:38, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
On the other hand, if someone has two accounts, we probably can rely on the
honor system.
Currently it's being suggested that people create a second account so
On 7 September 2010 22:59, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
gives them that.
I got far enough
On 9 September 2010 06:02, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
I would like to make some suggestions, that otherwise seem obvious to me, but
may not seem the same to others. This prompted by my recent experience with
identifying OSM data on a notable third party site/source/repo.
I think
Hi,
On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems
with imports. One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the
That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls
can show anything) that
On 2 September 2010 03:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
Pretty much the same thing in the
On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Maarten Deen schrieb:
On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote:
It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.
Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper.
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification.
What's the identity of the tag though, is
On 19 August 2010 22:05, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points
to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I
don't personally feel is very cool.
That's just another words to say not
Hi,
On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
one million objects is really not
something we should make a big fuss about. [...]
After the Haiti earthquake, 1
million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks.
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make
On 25 July 2010 12:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
TimSC wrote:
We should also get an official statement from OSMF that they will not
assert their database rights on our contributions.
Of course if OSMF were to say that they don't assert database right on any
contribution made
On 24 July 2010 00:02, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is
On 7 June 2010 21:40, Alexrk alex...@yahoo.de wrote:
Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 19:36:
So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would
be
able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a
ROI
on that work?
Our standard reply
On 21 May 2010 14:47, Oliver (skobbler) osm.oliver.ku...@gmx.de wrote:
Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database,
or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that
adapted database under the ODbL.
(I am trusting/hoping the human readable terms match
On 22 April 2010 01:26, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This is a serious limitation and leads to many pretty maps *not* being
made, or being made with non-OSM data. How is that bad? You tell me.
Given a choice of
(a) all maps can be made, but sharing them is a the maker's discretion
On 5 February 2010 12:05, Jonas Stein n...@jonasstein.de wrote:
http://www.troiki.de/karte.jpg
http://www.troiki.de/anfahrt.html
if so, should someone contact troiki and explain
how to use the osm maps correct.
In cases like this it would be *much* better for both sides if instead
having to
2010/1/5 Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com:
2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You give up
the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue.
...
Now *that* is very much not an assignment of copyright. The difference
(and the
2009/12/11 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
Some other potential points against using copyright transfer:
* Given one of the arguments against CC-BY-SA is that in some jurisdictions
the data isn't subject to copyright, copyright assignment of the data would
be a bit questionable.
* Businesses
2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Probably *something* is there in reality. Buildings, walls,
hedges, a
park ...? Map these objects (which obviously aren't
copyrighted), so
people know that someone has visited the area
2009/1/25 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
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
2009/1/22 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com:
Hi Fredrik
Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the
public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take
the lawyers' version and
65 matches
Mail list logo
