On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 04:32:33PM +0200, Iv?n S?nchez Ortega wrote:
> El Jueves, 4 de Septiembre de 2008, Joseph Gentle escribió:
> > [...] There's a bunch of ways even
> > pretty reasonable uses of OSM could leave you legally liable:
> > - You don't acknowledge _everyone_
>
> The CC-by-sa explic
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> > I think it may
> > underestimate the potential for corporate abuse. There are a lot of
> > people out there willing to leech of a community like OSM without
> > making any positive cont
Hi,
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> I think it may
> underestimate the potential for corporate abuse. There are a lot of
> people out there willing to leech of a community like OSM without
> making any positive contributions. It happens in the software world a
> lot.
Yes - but frankly, I don't care w
I seemed to have immersed myself in the depths of a healthy debate for
which I was not prepared. I don't yet have a full understanding of all
the issues, but I think some statements of Richard give a nice
summary:
"Yes, the new licence fixes 1 and 3. It also goes a long way to
defining what is per
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> El Jueves, 4 de Septiembre de 2008, Joseph Gentle escribió:
>> [...] There's a bunch of ways even
>> pretty reasonable uses of OSM could leave you legally liable:
>> - You don't acknowledge _everyone_
>
> The CC-by-sa explicitly says that you have to contribute the aut
El Jueves, 4 de Septiembre de 2008, Joseph Gentle escribió:
> [...] There's a bunch of ways even
> pretty reasonable uses of OSM could leave you legally liable:
> - You don't acknowledge _everyone_
The CC-by-sa explicitly says that you have to contribute the authors in a
reasonable way. There is
Joseph Gentle wrote:
> - It is never defined what constitutes a 'derived work' and a 'collaborative
> work'. People who try to be honest will stay away from OSM because they
> don't want to offend / don't want to be sued. People who want to be a jerk
> about the whole thing will use the data anywa
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The new license that is being discussed will probably address this
> > problem by trying to constrain the viral aspect to the data or the
> > database
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This situation will make it very difficult for you to find a publisher
> for your original work.
Not if they intend to compete on the quality of their product and
getting it into the market in a timely and tartgeted manner
Hi,
> It's not like the current Creative Commons license for OSM forbids
> commercial use.
This is true but some commercial uses might become un-viable because of
the SA license.
My standard example is this:
Assume you spend half a year making a nice hiking atlas from OSM data,
putting a lot
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:29 AM, spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:51:36AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
>
> > What can't you do with OSM data under the Creative Commons license
> > that you couldn't do with data in the Public Domain? To me it seems
> > like the only
On Sep 3, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> The "public domain versus Creative Commons" debate sounds similar to
> the GPL versus LGPL debate that goes on in the open source software
> development world. The licensing of geodata is an area of great
> interest to me, and something I wou
El Miércoles, 3 de Septiembre de 2008, Sunburned Surveyor escribió:
[...]
> The "public domain versus Creative Commons" debate sounds similar to
> the GPL versus LGPL debate that goes on in the open source software
> development world.
Not quite. It's more similar to the "GPL vs BSD" debate. The G
13 matches
Mail list logo
