On 07/25/2010 05:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
So why hasn't OSMF moved OSM to CC-BY-SA 3.0? The upgrade clause
makes that nearly as simple as sed 's/2.0/3.0/g' index.html,
right?
Nearly.
But at least one major contribution to OSM is from a jurisdiction where
the 2.0 licences included the EU DB
On 07/24/2010 05:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using
On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would
violate CC-BY-SA.
Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB
Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are
*generally* mutually incompatible
Rob Myers schrieb:
Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare
other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be
relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet.
So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible
Hi,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to
declare other licences compatible with BY-SA and allow derivatives
to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible
yet.
So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then
On 25 July 2010 18:49, Todd Huffman huffma...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you point me to a reference on this? Ideally there would be a
resource which laid out which jurisdictions one can put something into
public domain.
LMGTFY;
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225
/ Grant
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Is that a topic that's been discussed before on this mailing list?
Here it is in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations
[quote]
If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create
On 07/26/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony wrote:
Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all
elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data*
encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA.
No, it means the produced work is BY-SA.
Which means anybody
On 26 July 2010 17:19, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to
include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating
the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA.
Could you please point out to me code that is
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 05:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
So why hasn't OSMF moved OSM to CC-BY-SA 3.0? The upgrade clause
makes that nearly as simple as sed 's/2.0/3.0/g' index.html,
right?
Nearly.
But at least one major contribution to
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote:
Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License It does not say this article is
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
work without following the terms of ODbL.
Nowhere. However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to
those that cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising
On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
You said yourself that the database right doesn't have to be asserted.
Yes, I should have said do waive, not don't assert.
No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM
database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
work without following the terms of ODbL.
Nowhere.
Then you don't have permission to do so. At least not
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM
database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the
database to do so.
Not if OSM(F) waive their own
2010/7/23 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:
If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected
by. There may be copyright, which may protect the
16 matches
Mail list logo
