On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote:
If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant
all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements
are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly
OSM community can help your
The discussion is not about comparing to google or Wikimapia CT.
It's not because one is bad the other should be bad alike.
is about not trusting (and thus assuring by a CT) your OSM contributors,
and about not trusting the users (by using a unnecessary restrictive
license
compared to PD) that
Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
...
It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about.
The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion
only is about what license.
A license is necessary because we legally need to
Thanks Simon for your constructive reply.
(contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll)
But the EC directive does not oblige us to license
data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF.
If we choose for no-license or just PD
(give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that.
That
So by citing my e-mail without a license, you
made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually
republishing copyrighted work
May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived
work ?
And I can sue you because, contrary to maps in dbase format
that represent the real
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schrieb:
So by citing my e-mail without a license, you
made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually
republishing copyrighted work
No, only if it wasn't properly cited, as (AFAIK) most IP laws require
you to point out who is the author
On 11/08/11 16:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
I see no difference in re-publishing text, as in our email lists
and the database, properly citing Google as source.
You are correct. Both are breaches of copyright where it applies.
There are two important differences
Ed Avis schrieb:
The CC-BY-SA licence does seem to be a lot more straightforward than the
ODbL/DbCL combination.
As I understand it, that's because any current CC-BY-SA license does not
really cover databases as described by database laws in some
jurisdictions, and neither collections of
