Verfication would be a process of comparing my own data (lets's call
them A) with osm, likely using some automated precess, that would
output a set of locations or areas where the maps differ more than a
given threshold (dataset B).
Legally you now have three datasets A, OSM and a derivative work
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 05:43, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
jaakkoh wrote
Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of
verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out
and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in
If we need a change to the licence wording to allow Poland to keep their
data, lets put a few words a the end of the licence to allow Poland to do
just that, and put it to vote as required in the contributor terms.
Didn't we adopt the contributor terms just so we have just this flexibility?
I
Kai Krueger kakrueger@... writes:
We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as
easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is
legal and is not covered by the
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
That's a big presumption. I would have expected that remapping would be done
as
a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA
data
at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Isn't not looking
Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) any data published
under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
data.
This brings no risk, that anyony big and evil (whatever that is)
will use it to overrun OSM...
LM_1
2012/3/9 Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com:
Indeed.
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:
If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
cars/satellites out; and have the new
@openstreetmap.org
Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:
If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass
this would lead to UMP
accepting to allow to keep their data, that would be a major win for all!
Kai
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5549631.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Am 6. März 2012 17:52 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
our data outright) would be a valid use
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:55, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a
statement?
I think OSMF should give UMP concession to use OSM data in their maps
of Poland with their current license, like this:
The OSMF acknowledges
I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland
to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep
a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of
Poland and which is still there. The UMP project collects road routes
within
Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions. They are
additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone
else's use of the data. However, it is not in the spirit of the
community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions -
particularly not if they
Hi,
On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
. :(
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5541176.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
16 matches
Mail list logo
