Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright: > What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " > Again: it is just a hypothetical example. Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be sensible (just imagine

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Martin, Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important user of ODbL (with

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Hi, this is not the right group to discuss the matter but let me just say that your statement On 09/22/2015 10:57 PM, Tom Lee wrote: > It's dismaying to see the landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a > better legal > home (or at least partner) for all geodata, including new

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

On 2015-09-22 16:38, Paul Norman wrote: I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's independent of the metadata guideline. On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map"

[OSM-legal-talk] Please unsubscribe this email from your list

I don't know how to login to your site. Your list is clogging my email. Can you please remove this email? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

> Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding context? I think there are two goals that a successful geocoding guidance should meet: 1. Enable greater use of OSM data for geocoding, including scenarios in which sharealike provisions must not be applied (e.g.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On 2015-09-22 16:26, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:58 PM Tom Lee wrote: > Martin, > > > Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal > point of view, how it should be interpreted? > > > Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important > use cases.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:43 PM Tom Lee wrote: > If more people can run geocoding services built on OSM data, more people > will have an incentive to improve the map in order to improve their > results. I'm not merely speculating: I spend most of my time working on the > Mapbox

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread as stipulations that company XYZ is violating the licence. Could we pls have some comments on

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Please unsubscribe. Please. I don't know how to login. On 9/22/15, 5:27 PM, Simon Poole wrote: Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

I've added a clarification to the example in question as it is causing some contention. Simon Am 22.09.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Simon Poole: > > Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright: >> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " >> > Again: it is just a hypothetical example. > >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > One of the big grey areas remaining wrt our distribution licence is > defining if, and how you can link from external data to an OpenStreetMap > derived dataset. Nailing this down is, in my opinion, key to progress in >

[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's independent of the metadata guideline. On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text, because every additional word is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Am 22.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a > legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? Please read the introduction to the proposed guideline. > > I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise