Anthony wrote:
[Jane Smith]
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the
means of Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
'Jane Smith' might have committed
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Please Do Not Feed The
Trolls.
The person who has chosen the pseudonym Jane Smith has a right to have their
point heard.
I would not consider this person to be a troll, whether or not I am the person
recalled as intending to be publicly
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
Production.
We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is
what we workers should control.
No copyright was the true reason for
Am 30.08.2010 13:43, schrieb John Smith:
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
cases that demonstrate that it isn't.
What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
has
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and so far no one is offering to come to
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
not the other way around.
At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the
discussion over the LINZ
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many,
just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are
saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL
relicensing.
At this stage
On 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
- with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork
their data (or is only
Am 31.08.2010 12:56, schrieb Liz:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
not the other way around.
At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
Perhaps you had better
Ole Brandenburg wrote:
I would be thankful if someone can point me in the right direction.
We plan to use the OSM API for our map tool (at stepmap.de).
We currently have a list of roughly 1,500 pre-defined maps and
a zoom-feature that enables users to create their own map/region.
The OSM
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has
copyright.
Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be
banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least
On 08/31/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create
a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too.
I think it's more that we should ignore (people who we think are)
obvious trolls.
I'm not sure that Marxist views on
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright
assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of
upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later
On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Maarten Deen schrieb:
On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote:
It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.
Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper.
On 31 August 2010 16:00, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all
your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the
OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to
Am 29.08.2010 11:10, schrieb jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, i think i see what you are saying:
the license will be the only protection against third party abuse.
I think that copyleft is good enough.
I believe
Hi,
80n wrote:
An ODbL fork would not have same rights to the data as OSMF would have.
It would be a somewhat asymmetrical fork. You cannot fork the substance
of the contributor terms.
True, but I believe this discussion was about whether you can fork the
future ODbL OSM without having to
On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer.
___
legal-talk mailing list
20 matches
Mail list logo
