On 02/02/11 18:58, Rob Myers wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data
because you
disagree with it.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5988247.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 18:00, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't
simply wish away
On 02/03/2011 10:13 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent.
BY-SA is not a permissive or gift economy licence, it is a copyleft
licence. Its intent is precisely to ensure that the freedom to use the
work is inalienable.
Making it impossible
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license.
Mine is that the license is
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I've always understood that the intent of the
ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it.
Whose intent are we talking about,
2011/2/1 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
I know that at OSM we always used to say: If the layers are separable
then you can have different licenses on each; if not, then not.
Of course this would result in a map that can *not* be copied under
CC-BY-SA because it is virtually impossible to
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote:
What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base
map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your
interpretation, the part about the content
On 02/02/2011 05:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and
co-dependency - the question of does the overlaid stuff work without
the map. So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a
certain point in the map, and your photo
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote:
And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless
the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the
map.
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the
sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database,
in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work
based on a database, ever.
For
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the
sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database,
in which case
On 02/02/2011 05:49 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to
paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; if you take that as the
Where multiple sources of bits are combined to produce a single new
work, that new work is a derivative
On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data
is open and OSM is attributed; not
On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even if the context of the two images is
completely different?
The context
On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even if the
On 2 February 2011 20:02, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Indeed, I don't believe that there are any lawyers in the house! I do wish
that the Foundation would pay for one from time to time to help with general
questions like this which matter a lot to potential users of our
Hi,
On 02/02/11 19:39, Peter Miller wrote:
So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even if the context of the two images is
completely different?
Yes, I am not
Hi,
On 02/02/11 19:47, Jonathan Harley wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data
is open and OSM is attributed; not
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use
exception allows online mash-ups.
On 02/02/11 20:02, Peter Miller wrote:
I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very
Courts have seen it that way in the case of Shepher Fairey, Jeff Koons,
Andy Warhol, Richard Prince, The Beastie Boys, and many other artists
and musicians.
unhelpful view for the
Peter,
On 02/02/11 21:02, Peter Miller wrote:
I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very
unhelpful view for the project to take.
The whole attribution-and-share-alike thing is a very unhelpful
situation for the project but it doesn't go away simply because it is
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 02/02/11 18:49, Jonathan Harley wrote:
For print, yes, that's about the size of it.
I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to
paper or to a screen, changes the bits used
The
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the
instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does.
If you wrote a website which intentionally caused the computer of the
person visiting it to overheat,
Hi,
this has arisen in a discussion on talk-gb, but I'm paraphrasing to
spare you the details.
Say you make a printed map that consists of an OSM base map with
something else sourced from elsewhere printed on top, e.g. an OSM map
with your private dataset of underground pipelines.
Until now
27 matches
Mail list logo
