On 17/09/2010 00:18, Grant Slater wrote:
On 16 September 2010 21:26, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Grant Slateropenstreet...@firefishy.com
wrote:
This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working
Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_
On 17 September 2010 11:26, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
With this response b) was seen as compatible. Under a) it was advised
there is an issue of sub-licensing. Asking source author for
permission to contribute under CT was an option; as was to keep
distributing said specific data
- Original Message -
From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 09/17/2010 01:12 AM, 80n wrote:
That's a bit of a jump isn't it? Firstly, the CTs allow
Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2010 13:22, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
require (per clause 4) OSMF to attribute on request. There is no
mechanism
On 09/17/2010 02:46 PM, David Groom wrote:
In effect you are saying not to worry about the legal requirements in
the CT's, but rather to rely upon the idea that in the future OSMF will
behave in a certain way.
I am assuming that in the future OSMF will read the CTs and pause to
think before
Robert Whittaker (OSM robert.whittaker+...@... writes:
The ODbL already doesn't enforce viral attribution on derivatives of
produced works, and the free and open description of any new license
that may be adopted doesn't obligate any new license to have any
attribution requirements.
For some
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
The ODbL already doesn't enforce viral attribution on derivatives
of produced works
I don't intend to go over the argument on this again, but treat this message
as a little stake in the ground with I disagree with the above statement
written on it.
cheers
- Original Message -
From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 09/17/2010 03:45 PM, David Groom wrote:
In what way are you suggesting OSMF would breach
Grant Slater wrote:
Reply was that on b) explicit permission to sub-license is granted by
their license with the conditions that required attribution is given and
sub licensees keep said attribution. With this response b) was seen as
compatible. Under a) it was advised there is an issue of
On 17/09/2010 21:42, John Smith wrote:
On 18 September 2010 06:36, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
*Not* as you think/assume/guess they might be in the future.
That's the problem, the CTs aren't specific enough to deal with future
changes, and this is one of the outstanding issues that
On 18 September 2010 07:15, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
2) My question was about how the new license/CT is worded *now* not in the
assumptive future.
The problem is the CTs allow the potential for relicensing with a
fairly low barrier, but they don't address what happens with existing
11 matches
Mail list logo
