On 04.01.2011 08:53, Steve Bennett wrote:
The OSMF board mandates the LWG to enforce mandatory acceptance of the
CT and ODBL in order to edit the database by March 31st.
Have I misunderstood the situation, or is that pretty much the size of
it: on April 1st, all Nearmap-derived data (and
On 4 January 2011 18:40, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in
order to continue to EDIT.
eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible
with CT.
Which brings up the other point of
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
guaranteed a right
Hi,
On 01/04/11 16:02, Anthony wrote:
But what could we do?
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.
No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must
have the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they
should not
Rob Myers wrote:
On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
Terms.
[citation needed]
(http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)
:)
I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.
==
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Such an opt-out clause
would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot
where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it
at any time.
On the rest, we're going to
Hi,
On 01/04/11 15:17, John Smith wrote:
Or better yet, change active contributor to active participant and
include things like genuine mailing list posts or wiki edits or ...
rather than restricting interested parties to only those who can
edit...
I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit
On 5 January 2011 01:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
On 5 January 2011 01:54, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For
example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe the
would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on the Wiki
any
Anthony wrote:
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.
It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the
Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data
On 5 January 2011 02:16, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or
That's not the impression I get, take this comment for example:
John Smith wrote:
That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements
They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.
and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses
It doesn't. CT 4
On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
Terms.
[citation needed]
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.
It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. In your opinion, what would be
- Original Message -
From: Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Peter Miller writes:
I will currently be
- Original Message -
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 5 January 2011 04:08, Stephan Knauss
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any
data sources that went into making that database.
As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. Extracting
I wrote:
As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it
helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e.
Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the
Contents in a new Database).
To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a,
On 4 January 2011 17:53, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
My first question is: which version of the CT is referred to there?
Does this mean the totally broken v1.0, the partially broken proposed
v1.2.2, or some hopefully non-broken v1.3?
I haven't been keeping track of this
part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110104/a6dee22c/attachment.html
--
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110104/a6dee22c/attachment.html
--
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
22 matches
Mail list logo
