On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:09:08AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
represents a quantitatively substantial part of the general contents of
the protected database. A quantitatively negligible part of the
contents
of a
Luis,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, I hope you don't mind
that I've referenced the mail link on the page for resource reading!
On 30/04/2014 00:10, Luis Villa wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that this rule is only for OSM/ODBL, but it
wouldn't hurt to make that more
From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:09 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
Without going further into the details of the many drafting shortcomings
of ODBL (which, to be clear
Paul Norman wrote:
Is there any relevant case law on substantial?
A brief reminder that there are two useful wiki pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Case_law
which collect links to useful papers and cases. In particular Charlotte
Waelde's paper
[Before addressing these technical legal issues, I should note that I
represent the Wikimedia Foundation, not OSM/the OSM community. While I hope
that in most cases the perspective of the WMF and the perspective of OSM
are in alignment, OSM members and the OSMF should definitely seek their own
From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
Reminder that Simon has pointed out here quite recently that ODBL claims
to be a binding contract
