Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 8 December 2010 19:30, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/12/10 23:49, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> I'm not assuming anything. > > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions As someone else pointed o

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 8 December 2010 18:51, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > John Smith wrote: >>> In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government >>> Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences >> >(ODC-By and ODbL). >> Nice bait and switch... > > Goodness me, John, do you have to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

alf of the OSMF, sidestepping the whole issue of 3rd party data being first licensed to the mapper and then sublicensed to the OSMF. Simon - Original Message - From: "Richard Fairhurst" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in sectio

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 07/12/10 23:49, Simon Poole wrote: I'm not assuming anything. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM community) don't have an handle on imports in any respect. Yes I'd agree with that. - R

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

u are mistaken wrt to the number of licenses, particulary if you are looking a local and regional data sources. Simon - Original Message - From: "Richard Fairhurst" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 Simon Poo

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

John Smith wrote: >> In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government >> Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences > >(ODC-By and ODbL). > Nice bait and switch... Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?! > In your first

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 8 December 2010 11:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of > future mappers. > > In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) > openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODb

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

Simon Poole wrote: > Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, > non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are > compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with > some degree of certainty is just a joke. Not at all. Most imports will fall under one o

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

Mike insection 4 "4. At Your or the copyright holder's option," probably should be "You" not "Your" David - Original Message - From: Mike Collinson To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:44 PM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

cent import of 30'000 public transport stops (don't panic, the license is "probably" ok (see above) and I'll ask the importers to add it to the list). Simon - Original Message - From: "Grant Slater" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

ve, but I can't say that that is a bad thing. Simon - Original Message - From: "Rob Myers" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: The LWG actually knows that th

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey wrote: > On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski 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 is to expressly state that the con

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: > > Franics writes: >> >> What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF >> to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are >> "compatible" with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of >> those. > > This or a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to actually do anything about it. Please Assume Good Faith. Also remember that the LWG meets once a week. And that they do read this list. - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are "compatible" with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The cur

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. > > 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 is to expressly state that the contributor does not gua

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey wrote: > On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski 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 such conflicting data is there any p

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski 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 such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can > submit such data without autom

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 7 December 2010 20:44, Mike Collinson wrote: > And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially > setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed Cool. Thanks for the info. > it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appre

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate. Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >David Groom wrote: >> If the OSMF board wish to move

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony wrote: > However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, > unintended consequences are unenforcible. And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say that I don't

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst >> wrote: >>> Rather, as Francis pointed out: "A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting >>> the licence? It does happen you know :-)." >>> >>>

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Rather, as Francis pointed out: "A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting > the licence? It does happen you know :-)." > > Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be > adequately explained by cock-up. The who

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > David Groom wrote: >> If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD > > They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I > think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that > anyone can consider

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

David Groom wrote: > If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

- Original Message - From: "Francis Davey" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 [snipped for brevity] Yes. I am fairly clear that some people don't wan

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 3 December 2010 14:14, Anthony wrote: > > Okay, true.  I still think it accomplishes something very important > which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA.  OSMF doesn't get any special > rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have. Ah, I see, and I'm fairly sure that wasn't what those I've s

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony wrote: >> >> I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing >> it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an >> equal footing with OSMF. >> > > Pedantically: OSMF ha

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

Original Message - From: "Anthony" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom wrote: >> - Origi

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony wrote: > > I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing > it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an > equal footing with OSMF. > Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no interpretation where th

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Anthony" >> I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing >> it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an >> equal footing with OSMF. > > Could you : > > a) explai

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

- Original Message - From: "Anthony" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Francis Davey wrote: The better question to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > The better question to ask at this stage is, what is it for not what > does it do? I didn't draft or propose this wording, but someone must > have done and someone, or some people, must have an idea of what its > function is supposed to be. >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 2 December 2010 01:36, Anthony wrote: > > Damn.  I was hoping no one was going to notice that before the terms > went into effect :). I'm pretty sure I pointed out difficulties with the wording a reasonably long time ago. Two remarks: - A court might interpret it in context to mean merely th

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

On 2 December 2010 00:40, Frederik Ramm 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 Your

[OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

>From CT 1.2: 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 Your Contents" ? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.na