On 18 June 2011 05:25, davespod wrote:
> In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map
> tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is
> they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the
> advice here (under "Be spec
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David Groom wrote:
> Word in quotes below relate to the meanings given them by ODbL
>
> Assume I use jxapi to download an extract of the main OSM database . Is the
> downloaded extract a "Derivative Database", or since the download was
> provided by OSM does the d
Word in quotes below relate to the meanings given them by ODbL
Assume I use jxapi to download an extract of the main OSM database . Is the
downloaded extract a "Derivative Database", or since the download was
provided by OSM does the downloaded data qualify as simply a "Database"?
Regards
D
The CT/License Vote was IMHO not meant to be a serious democratic
process. Instead a majority was searched for a OSMF decision:
like non anonymous voting for a single party in some countries
where your lose your job if voting against -fill in your favorite dictator-
As long as the majority is mas
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:
>>
>> The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to
>> contribute.
>
> It it defined anywhere what "contribute" means?
>From the contributor terms v1.2.4
> An "active contributor
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:
The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to
contribute.
It it defined anywhere what "contribute" means? I have heard statements
before that sending messages, e.g. in here, also counts as a
contribution, as does replying to a reque
2011/6/17 Dermot McNally :
> On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
> objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of "active
> contributor".
If we take the voting issues seriously we should also have a
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith
>> wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
On 17 June 2011 17:17, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>> 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
>>> that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
>>> whic
On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> Please note that the CT do not guarantee a 2/3 majority of the community. Only
> a part of the community is entitled to vote.
I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
objection to addressing weaknesses in the defi
On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
>> that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
>> which would prevent their uses.
>
> News to me. Do you have
On 18 June 2011 01:10, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the
> countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived
> database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are
> not in trouble, just if.
Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the
countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the
derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the
EU you are not in trouble, just if.
Simon
Am 17.06.2011 16:54, schrieb John Smit
On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
>>> patents to prove to you that your reasoning "either somethi
On 18 June 2011 00:13, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> No. Please re-read, and try to understand, my "Patents" example. You do not
Patents don't apply, and contract restrictions don't transfer without
explicit agreement from both parties to that contact, which is why I'm
asking if websites would have to b
Hi,
On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote:
So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced
works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from,
Ignore my words if you want but don't claim you are "met with silence".
unless the
ODBL prevents this in which case tile u
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.
My question was about produced works (tiles) and restrictions that
they could be licensed under, regardless if I am distributing or
tracing or selling for that matter, if someone produces tiles
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
>>
>> CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
>> cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?
>
> Sorry, I tho
Hi,
On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?
Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.
Tiles can be put un
On 17 June 2011 19:18, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 June 2011 19:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06/17/11 10:49, John Smith wrote:
Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
Produced Work.
>>>
>>> So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-s
On 17/06/11 14:07, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
>
> Shortly after I wrote these words, a respected community member
> attacked me as being "blinded by ideology".
This anonymous but respected community member, during a lengthy debate
regarding your concerns about the CTs, wrote:
"""I mean, you
Hi Dermot,
> That's not a bad start - but if I play spot-the-missing-bit, it looks
> to me that you aren't prepared to trust 2/3 of the community to decide
> that (for reasons not yet forseen) a licence other than the two you
> list and which may not be copyleft/sharealike.
Please note that the C
On 17 June 2011 19:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/17/11 10:49, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
>>> Produced Work.
>>
>> So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then?
>
> Only if the amount of data trac
Hi,
On 06/17/11 10:49, John Smith wrote:
Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
Produced Work.
So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then?
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
This echoes the "reverse engineering" disc
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ben Last wrote:
> The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been
> derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes
> the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being
I'm still finding
2011/6/17 Ben Last :
>
> The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been
> derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes
> the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being
> a lawyer, I'm not going to comment on how t
26 matches
Mail list logo
