On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against
if
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes,
On 2 September 2010 02:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
Pretty much the same thing in the
On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it.
+1
ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution.
What it isn't is share-alike for produced works.
Even BY-SA doesn't cover
:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5490444.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it.
+1
ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution.
What it isn't
On 09/02/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution.
What it isn't is share-alike for produced works.
And what it also isn't, is CC-BY-SA for databases.
It provides attribution and
, thank you for
listening.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5491588.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
C'mon, that's what weak copyleft means. Not viral for some types of
derived works.
If that is indeed the definition of weak copyleft - and I'd like you
to cite a source on that - then we're changing from one sort of weak
copyleft license to another sort of weak copyleft
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
So BY-SA is not reciprocal in every use case at every conceptual level of
abstraction either. And there are cases where this doesn't fit people's
expectations, notably in illustration (photographic and otherwise) as I've
said.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
C'mon, that's what weak copyleft means. Not viral for some types of
derived works.
If that is indeed the definition of weak copyleft - and I'd like you to
cite a source on that - then we're
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:22:12PM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Albertas Agejevas a...@pov.lt wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider
Anthony schrieb:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright
assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of
upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and
Francis Davey schrieb:
Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the
copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent
assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to
certain exceptions.
While that may be true, anyone not trusting the
On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to
databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps
however (possibly this only means maps as images though)
It is my understanding that they
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to
databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps
however
On 1 September 2010 22:41, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not even sure what maps as images means. If a map is described in
XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a map as an image?
Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and
sculptural works are included
On 2 September 2010 03:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
Pretty much the same thing in the
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it.
+1
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright
assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of
upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later
On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Maarten Deen schrieb:
On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote:
It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.
Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper.
On 31 August 2010 16:00, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all
your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the
OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to
Am 29.08.2010 11:10, schrieb jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, i think i see what you are saying:
the license will be the only protection against third party abuse.
I think that copyleft is good enough.
I believe
On 29 August 2010 23:41, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
Eric Jarvies
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does
Y have to the data to begin
Am 29.08.2010 17:52, schrieb Rob Myers:
The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to
change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they
exist. OSM will be no different.
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle,
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely an extension of the existing license, than
Am 30.08.2010 12:03, schrieb Rob Myers:
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some
On 08/30/2010 11:06 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway you like, GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not
On 08/30/2010 11:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway
On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the
majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You are trying to claim that open
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very
low barrier for change to
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective
against such an attack.
I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response
about it.
Consider for example if someone in the US[0]
On 08/30/2010 12:09 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open
On 08/30/2010 01:09 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 30/08/2010, at 3:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.
It can yes, however there are a lot of developers who refuse to work on
projects that
2010/8/29 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
well spring isn't in March (here)
spring starts shortly
so whoever wrote that was a
2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
well spring isn't in March (here)
spring starts
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
For me, I heard about
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Duane,
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo
information removed,
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Duane,
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo
information removed,
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
license changes as suggested on
On 29 August 2010 17:21, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
That's a bit silly. So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data
with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as
noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. And even
Which is
On 29 August 2010 07:23, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Duane,
Not at all, I never consider that OSm would move to an incompatible
contract system and away from copyright/copyleft.
On 29 August 2010 18:16, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Of course we value all existing data but a few unfortunatly licensed
imports should not put undue restrict restrictions on the project.
There will always be restrictions on the project, because there are
lots of data
On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an
idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing
their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law,
contract
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an
idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing
their work
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:40:23AM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an
idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing
their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law,
contract
On 08/29/2010 06:57 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
no, copyleft is only based on copyright.
sorry.
This is why I find it easier to refer to Share-Alike for OSM.
But in either case it's not the legal form that's important, it's the
social content.
- Rob.
On 08/29/2010 08:21 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data
with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other
license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10
years.
It's because no-one can predict how the environment
Rob Myers wrote:
On 08/29/2010 08:21 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data
with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other
license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10
years.
It's because no-one can predict
Eric Jarvies
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, my understanding (and
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that
requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL)
and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring
certain special
On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
please see this as well,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons
What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a
CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
please see this as well,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons
What is missing
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo
information removed, another million objects that can be added in just
a few weeks?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004107.html
I wonder how many million of objects he plans to remove and in the
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:22 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo
information removed, another million objects that can be added in just
a few weeks?
On 29 August 2010 09:32, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder how long you are going to keep targeting Frederik as if he is the
only one to blame for this?
He keeps making himself the target when he keeps insulting sections of
the community like he does.
Duane,
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo
information removed,
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to
make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European
Union has the Database Directive but most other
On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages.
Since the data is
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anyway I hear there's an excellent group of people planning a continuity
fork so any data OSM cannot continue to use would be safe with them.
A fork will be a very bad thing. Even if the users are split 80-20, there
On 29 August 2010 00:48, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
license changes
On 29 August 2010 10:27, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
From what I can see the data is CC-BY.
http://www.archive.org/details/Kosova_Road_Data_from_iMMAP
The attribution question is still being dealt with by LWG's legal
council. I don't see there being an issue.
I was going
On 29 August 2010 01:33, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap.
Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years?
Hell no. I see it being sorted out fairly quickly. As per update email
to talk-au list the LWG has
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to
make sure that internationally everyone gets the same
68 matches
Mail list logo
