On 13 May 2009, at 01:36, Matt Amos wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
...and
Peter Miller's concerns are legit: If you are the licensor, then,
under
4.4.d...
Licensors may authorise a proxy to determine compatible licences
under
On 12/05/09 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Claiming copyright on something where you are not reasonably sure of
actually having it is, in my eyes, a FUD maneouvre worthy of players
like the OS, but something that we should make an attempt to steer clear of.
The way of avoiding it seeming to be
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
There is both the situation were OSM bulk-imports some data
from another source into OSM that is published as ODbL where the
original data owner can not be contacted which I would hope would be
possible,
under the
Ulf Möller use...@... writes:
Jukka Rahkonen schrieb:
But what if OSMF is changing the license and somebody has
managed to base some business on top of derived database
licensed under the old
ODbL license? Dou you lawyers say that it is a sound basis
for building a
business? For
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
The way of avoiding it seeming to be FUD is to have a clause like:
Nothing in this licence attempts to restrict your rights under fair use
or a similar doctrine.
Sounds like: We have a honest desire to sue the shit out of you if you
violate any of our 52
Jukka Rahkonen schrieb:
And if the maintainer of the derived database has a
community that continues to collect new data under ODbL 1.0 terms, and the
main
OSM has advanced to ODbL 1.1 or something, is it possible to exchange data
between these two systems?
According to RC1, you could use
