Hello,
The currently accepted wisdom is that there exists a separate channel,
apart from copyright, in which database right persists no matter what
copyright license is used.
This means that *if* somebody took lots and lots of CC-BY-SA-published
OSM maps and reverse-engineered them into a
Hi,
On 24.07.2012 18:01, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:
Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to
protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')?
No, I mentioned the patent as an example of non-copyright IP that
persists even through a CC-BY-SA chain where it is not
Hello,
Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to
protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')?
No, I mentioned the patent as an example of non-copyright IP that persists
even through a CC-BY-SA chain where it is not mentioned at all.
So, in my understanding
On 07/24/2012 08:19 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:
Hello,
ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the
original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate
part of it.
Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your
responsibilities due
Hello,
ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the original
database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate part of it.
Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your
responsibilities due to the link to the license from the attribution.
Hello,
doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then
another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his
CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license?
You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be attributed at
each point
On 07/24/2012 10:01 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:
Hello,
doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then
another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his
CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license?
You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA,
Hello,
instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions
are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are
stronger?
Each license covers the material that it covers.
mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would
have to create
From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org]
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced
Work
BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0
notwithstanding).
It's important to note that this is only true where databases (like OSM
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If it were any different, you could team up with a co-publisher, publish
your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world without
you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that demands
Hi,
On 22.07.2012 00:22, Paul Norman wrote:
If CC4 comes out with such indiscrimante inclusion of database rights
then my guess is that it will either be automatically impossible to
licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow
it.
I'm not sure who you mean by we in
Hi,
On 22.07.2012 08:43, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
So, conveying your work to a
another entity and not the general public does not count as
publishing.
I think that as far as viral licenses are concerned, the public is
anyone who is not yourself, or part of your own organisation.
I think
Hi legal-talk,
I have a couple of questions about the use of map images, which I
understand to be ODbL Produced Works, in Wikipedia. I've tried to
find answers on the OSM wiki but I haven't seen anything addressing
them.
1. The attribution requirement. ODbL says:
4.3 Notice for using output
Hi,
On 21.07.2012 20:18, Mike Dupont wrote:
No. The Produced Work you create is uploaded to Wikipedia under
CC-BY-SA and that's all that counts. CC-BY-SA would not allow
additional conditions (e.g. the making available of a source
database) anyway. The Created from OdBL-licensed
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
(If anyone wants to pursue this discussion I would very much ask them to
peruse the mailing list archives with the search term reverse engineering
and read up on past discussions so that we don't have to repeat
Hi again,
On 21 July 2012 20:10, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 21.07.2012 18:19, Adrian Frith wrote:
Do we really have to include the full notice Contains information from
OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database
License (ODbL) in the caption of every
On 21.07.2012 20:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 21.07.2012 18:19, Adrian Frith wrote:
Do we really have to include the full notice Contains information from
OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database
License (ODbL) in the caption of every use of an OSM-derived map in a
Hi,
On 21.07.2012 20:44, Adrian Frith wrote:
Does this mean that, in my scenario, the only recipient to whom I have
an obligation under ODbL sec. 4.6 is the Wikimedia Foundation?
Everyone else who receives it receives it from WMF under CC-BY-SA and
they have no claim on me?
This is an
Hi,
On 21 July 2012 21:04, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 21.07.2012 20:44, Adrian Frith wrote:
If it were any different, you could team up with a co-publisher, publish
your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world without
you ever having to release anything.
Hi,
On 21.07.2012 21:33, Paul Norman wrote:
CC 4.0 licenses explicitly include database rights (sec. 1 (b) of draft 1).
How will this work when 4.0 is published and CC BY-SA tiles include the
database rights?
Also an interesting question but one that would probably have to be
addressed to
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org]
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:30 PM
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced
Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi,
On 21.07.2012 21:33, Paul Norman wrote:
CC 4.0 licenses explicitly
21 matches
Mail list logo
