Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL

2010-07-10 Thread edodd
 On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:

 I have said consistently that the Australian section of the map stands
 to lose
 an enormous amount of data in a change to ODbL.


 This is a strawman argument.

 If - and I really mean if - If we had to remove the Australian
 coastline, then we can get another version with very little effort.
 It's really not the big issue that it might seem. We managed for the
 rest of the planet, and there's nothing special about the Australian
 coastline.

The accuracy of the coastline from ABS data compared to the previous PGS
coastline is the reason that mappers have remade the coastline from the
newer data.
You are suggesting that we revert to the old coastline. Perhaps we prefer
the vastly more accurate one we obtained from the Australian government.
It is certainly not a straw argument.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] using OSM on TV

2010-07-10 Thread Manuel Reimer

visio...@petml.com wrote:

What's required of my customers? I'm hoping that if I attribute on my
website and in my app that will be enough. Some broadcasters are
hesitant of using attribution.


I've seen attribution on TV several times. Mostly for bigger companies 
like Microsoft. Why should this be impossible with an open project like 
openstreetmap?


In case that a broadcaster wants to send a picture with OSM data, he is 
the person, who uses the data and so he is the person who has to do what 
the license says.


The license says (http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en):

| How to credit OpenStreetMap
|
| If you are using OpenStreetMap map images, we request that your
| credit reads at least “© OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA”. If
| you are using map data only, we request “Map data © OpenStreetMap
| contributors, CC-BY-SA”.
|
| Where possible, OpenStreetMap should be hyperlinked to
| http://www.openstreetmap.org/  and CC-BY-SA to
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. If you are using a
| medium where links are not possible (e.g. a printed work), we suggest
| you direct your readers to www.openstreetmap.org (perhaps by
| expanding ‘OpenStreetMap’ to this full address) and to
| www.creativecommons.org.

That's what the license says and noone here will be able to tell you 
something else.


It's the job of the broadcaster to add this type of credit to his 
publication! If you don't tell your customers, that they have to respect 
the CC-BY-SA license, then what you do is to relicense data, you don't 
own, under a different license to your customer.



So much so as to flat out not use product
requiring attribution. For example, some NBC affiliates won't use Google
Earth due to the attribution requirements. That's why there are still
mapping companies like Curious Maps.


You don't have to pay. Anything, you have to do, is to name the author 
(openstreetmap.org contributors), so where is your problem? If your 
customer prefers to pay for data, that doesn't need attribution, he 
should pay for it.


You can't just take the openstreetmap.org data, without doing what the 
license says. If you don't like the license, then please don't use the data.



Some of these guys would rather pay than risk attributing an unknown product.


One idea behind attribution is, that openstreetmap.org gets a more known 
project.


Yours

Manuel


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] using OSM on TV

2010-07-10 Thread visiontv

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:43 +0200, Manuel Reimer
manuel.s...@nurfuerspam.de wrote:
 visio...@petml.com wrote:
  What's required of my customers? I'm hoping that if I attribute on my
  website and in my app that will be enough. Some broadcasters are
  hesitant of using attribution.
 
 I've seen attribution on TV several times. Mostly for bigger companies 
 like Microsoft. Why should this be impossible with an open project like 
 openstreetmap?

No one said it's impossible. Some broadcasters refuse to attribute so
they won't use OSM data or other products that require attribution like
Google Earth.

 
 In case that a broadcaster wants to send a picture with OSM data, he is 
 the person, who uses the data and so he is the person who has to do what 
 the license says.
 
 The license says (http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en):
 
 | How to credit OpenStreetMap
 |
 | If you are using OpenStreetMap map images, we request that your
 | credit reads at least “© OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA”. If
 | you are using map data only, we request “Map data © OpenStreetMap
 | contributors, CC-BY-SA”.
 |
 | Where possible, OpenStreetMap should be hyperlinked to
 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/  and CC-BY-SA to
 | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. If you are using a
 | medium where links are not possible (e.g. a printed work), we suggest
 | you direct your readers to www.openstreetmap.org (perhaps by
 | expanding ‘OpenStreetMap’ to this full address) and to
 | www.creativecommons.org.
 
 That's what the license says and noone here will be able to tell you 
 something else.

That's not all it says. There is conflicting information. That's the
point of my post. If you go back to my original post you will clearly
see links I've referenced that pose much more liberal attribution
requirements; and I use the word requirement somewhat jokingly. The
information on the various OSM sites don't really provide clear
guidance. Some portions say you don't have to attribute on the map
itself and instead you can attribute in an acknowledgments section.
Other OSM sites state that if you use OSM data in a TV broadcast that
you do not even have to attribute on-air at all (which I find
incredible); in those instances you can simply attribute on the
affiliated web site. You'll have to forgive me for my confusion, but I
didn't create this mess. Now, perhaps I'm misreading this stuff. Anyone
with access to google can see what I'm referring to. I included this
information in my original post.

 
 It's the job of the broadcaster to add this type of credit to his 
 publication! If you don't tell your customers, that they have to respect 
 the CC-BY-SA license, then what you do is to relicense data, you don't 
 own, under a different license to your customer.
 

Settle down pal. Know one said anything about hiding the fact we're
using OSM. That's the reason I'm posting here seeking clarification. I
want to be compliant. Sheesh.

  So much so as to flat out not use product
  requiring attribution. For example, some NBC affiliates won't use Google
  Earth due to the attribution requirements. That's why there are still
  mapping companies like Curious Maps.
 
 You don't have to pay. Anything, you have to do, is to name the author 
 (openstreetmap.org contributors), so where is your problem? If your 
 customer prefers to pay for data, that doesn't need attribution, he 
 should pay for it.
 

There must be some kind of language barrier. I realize I don't have to
pay for OSM data. I was just using an example. 

 You can't just take the openstreetmap.org data, without doing what the 
 license says. If you don't like the license, then please don't use the
 data.
 

Geesh. I'm starting to regret I even posted. I hope this kind of
response isn't typical. I'm simply trying to be compliant and seeking to
promote OSM data. Please, forget I asked. No follow-up response from you
is desired.

My apologies to everyone if I come across as gruff. This guy just rubbed
me the wrong way. 


  Some of these guys would rather pay than risk attributing an unknown 
  product.
 
 One idea behind attribution is, that openstreetmap.org gets a more known 
 project.
 
 Yours
 
 Manuel
 
 
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
 

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk