The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the
database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For
that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the
impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database
Contents Licence (DbCL)
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ...
What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper
supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of
OpenStreetMap data.
Does it really deserve
2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:
What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin
doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though:
Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy
and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and
I am unpaid nobody in the context of last two emails on this thread. In my
opinion, it sure would be nice for users (not contributors alone) if
there was lot more clarity. I imagine, from my point of view, that
contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial
users if the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:19:10PM -0400, Alex Barth wrote:
Good call on geocodes - geocoding results. That's clearer.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
What do you think the status of a database of geocoding results is under
the interpretation in
2014-10-29 13:47 GMT+01:00 Sachin Dole sd...@genvega.com:
... if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, ..., that contributors and
other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license
is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving
derivative or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature
that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share
alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ...
What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a
paper supporting their
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
I'm wondering if we should replace geocodes with geocoding results
throughout the page. I think it improves clarity as to what is being
discussed, and geocodes is not a term in common use for what we are
discussing.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
A geocoding result is not the same as a database of geocoding results.
Column 1 says the former is a produced work, but is silent on the latter.
I updated the guide to be explicit about this case:
Hey Michal -
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk
wrote:
alex, please read 4.6 of odbl, which basically says there is no
difference between derivative db and produced work with regards to
database rights.
4.6 talks about disclosure standards in cases
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:03:03PM -0400, Alex Barth wrote:
Hey Michal -
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk
wrote:
alex, please read 4.6 of odbl, which basically says there is no
difference between derivative db and produced work with regards to
12 matches
Mail list logo
